W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:37:16 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF85E6CF83.1F844CC1-ON85256E60.007BD546-85256E60.007C4315@us.ibm.com>
Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> wrote on 03/23/2004 02:39:08 PM:

> At 18:53 +0100 3/23/04, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >Chris
> >
> >>  I may be misunderstanding your question,
> >>  but I believe it is quite simple:
> >>  if you want to treat classes as instances you are in OWL Full.
> >>  There is simply no way to do that in DL or Lite ...
> >
> >I know that :))
> >So let me put the question otherwise, in terms of best practice.
> >
> >- Is it worth the trade-off to switch one's ontology (otherwise DL) 
> >to OWL-Full, just to
> >allow its classes to be used as objects in 'dc:subject' predicates?
> That's a weird way to ask the question.  You mean, is it worth doing 
> the extra work to break your naturally occuring model just so that 
> you can be in DL?


> >
> [snip]
> >Is the problem more clearly set this way?
> >Is not it a BP issue?
> >
> I would argue this is indeed a BP issue, but probably for WORLD not 
> for OPEN... we need to explain why and when you would do the extra 
> work (and in every case we have explored it is extra work) to make 
> sure your ontology is in the DL profile of OWL.

Wow, I never imagined having to argue over doing more work.......but....

My view of World is to explain "WHY OWL and RDF are they way they are" 
whereas OEP is for "HOW you do xxxx".  This seems like the latter....?

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 17:37:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 23 March 2004 17:37:53 EST