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.

Pat


>--
>Professor James Hendler 
>http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/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
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes