Yes, it might (assuming you were addressing me) although it may be too late now. We re-used the OWL namespace mostly out of habit, not from some particular goal or aim (well, to not break existing tools like Protege which knew how to manipulate that *syntax* -- that was the main goal)... But at this point I'm not sure a different namespace is going to change anyone's mind. :> Cheers, Kendall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Paul <paul@proxml.be> wrote: > Would using different namespaces help in acceptance? > > Kind regards, > > Paul > > > > > On 29-jul.-2014, at 19:46, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I appreciate that concern. Everyone keeps telling me that this seems > like a problem in principle; apparently we're the only ones who built it > *as a real thing* and *in practice* it's not a problem at all. Our > customers don't find it in the least bit confusing. In fact, as we > originally said, most people who wanted OWL always wanted closed world > semantics anyway, so giving it to them is a big win. > > Oh well. :> > > Cheers, > Kendall > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bernard Vatant < > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > >> Hi Kendall >> >> I did not want to point at any specific syntax, but since you mention it >> ... >> Reusing OWL syntax with a closed world interpretation is of course a >> seductive path (which I've been following myself, as said before) but I've >> always been a bit uneasy about it. OWA is built in the OWL Recommendation. >> I would rather have a neutral language, with non-ambiguous open world >> interpretation in OWL, and another one in any closed-world language (SPIN, >> SPARQL, you name it). >> >> >> 2014-07-29 18:07 GMT+02:00 Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>: >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Bernard Vatant < >>> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Does that mean that we are looking for something (language, format, >>>> whatever) that could be interpreted either with the open world assumption >>>> to support open world reasoning, and (exactly the same piece) interpreted >>>> in closed world applications as a constraint for interfaces or a validation >>>> rule? >>>> >>> >>> I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but this is precisely what >>> Stardog ICV does using OWL syntax and is (to my knowledge) the only such >>> system that does. But, alas, it does not appear that there is consensus in >>> the likely Validation WG to put that on the recommendation track. A >>> mistake, in my view, but there you go. :> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kendall >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Bernard Vatant * >> Vocabularies & Data Engineering >> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 >> Skype : bernard.vatant >> http://google.com/+BernardVatant >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> *Mondeca* >> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris >> www.mondeca.com >> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> > >Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:02:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC