RE: [OEP] "Classes as values" first draft

>At 12:52 +0200 4/15/04, NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP wrote:
>Perhaps that the fact to describe a blocking situation in the 
>context of this use case due to the fact that we are in OWL FULL, 
>could help people to better realize what to be in OWL FULL really 
>means. My request comes from the fact that when i tried to find such 
>a situation/example it was more difficult than i thought at first
>Sure, as long as for any "blocking condition" that someone claims is 
>caused by being in OWL Full, we also include blocking conditions 
>which result from being in OWL DL/Lite (there are many that I'm 
>encoutering in my work these days) and also that we explore some new 
>paradigms that are yet relatively sparse -- for example, Mike Dean 
>had some nice examples (I think it was at a DAML meeting) of the 
>idea of, essentially, taking the OWL DL subset of an OWL Full 
>document and it using it for some reasoning (classification) tasks.
>   Again, what I ask is that we remember we're in largely unexplored 
>space and we need to be very careful of being judgmental -- I have 
>met many people who believe in the future OWL DL will cease to exist 
>and everyone will just use something called OWL, I have met many 
>people who believe in the future OWL Full will cease to exist and 
>everyone will just use something called OWL, and I've met many 
>people who think it will continue as current - with perhaps more OWL 
>profiles growing over time (for example, the Gene Ontology folks 
>have been thinking about how to interact w/OWL, given they consider 
>part-whole to be the most important kind of representation for the 
>applications they run) -- in short, predicting the future is always 
>difficult and we should be careful to embrace multiple views

Agreed. Since this is such a sensitive area, we need to be 
particularly careful with terminology.

Let me suggest that rather than say that something is "in OWL-Full", 
it would be better to say that it is not in OWL-DL. That is, the 
important negative aspect of the simple solution is that it puts one 
OUTSIDE the DL subcase.  This gets the key point across, and also I 
think places the focus on what is going to be for many users the key 
issue, which is whether or not the ontology will be rejected by 
DL-restricted tools.

Also, on a more general pedagogic point, the sooner more people get 
used to thinking in terms of expressiveness/functionality trade-offs, 
the better. This issue, in one form or another, is the central one.


>Professor James Hendler 
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
>Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 13:50:16 UTC