Re: [OEP] public comment

Peter,

>> You have a point there, and others have raised similar issues [1],
> [2].
>> I am not sure (1) is a feasible option though -- see my reply to Brian
>> today. On (2) indeed translations between patterns would be helpful.
>> Short of providing the translation tools themselves what type of
>> information should we provide in the note to enable  tool developers
> to
>> write conversions?
>
> Let me just brainstorm aloud and correct me later if my logic goes
> astray somewhere.

Thanks for the ideas! A few comments below.

> Aldo and I have used the foundational approach in the past, but it
> carries a lot of commitment, so now let's just look if it's possible to
> find internal mappings. For the sake of argument, I'll try to map
> Approach 2-5 to Approach 1. (Simply by looking at the number of boxes,
> Approach 1 seems to be the least expressive, which holds the promise
> that we can project the other ontologies onto this one.)

"Expressive" may not be the right word. I would actually say that 
Approach 1 is the most expressive since it uses constructs that are not 
available in other (DL) approaches. You are right though that it has 
fewer constructs and thus mapping to it is easier.

however, it also seems that from the purely  pragmatic point of view, 
what people will need is the opposite translation. That is, if you want 
to allow editing in more natural (to many , at least) way, you want to 
edit using Approach 1 and then map it to OWL DL, using one of the other 
approaches. Thus, it seems that you will need the translation from 
Approach 1 to the 4 others at least as much as the reverse direction. 
And these translations are tricker, since they need to introduce new 
concepts (those extra boxes in the diagrams).

So, if we want to do such an appendix, it seems that it should include 
translations in both directions).  I am not sure what the general 
feeling in the group is, in particular since we do not have any agreed 
upon formalism for rules yet, and here we will need to use existential 
qualifiers, skolems, or some such. Perhaps we'll bring it up in the 
telecon tomorrow.

Natasha

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 15:29:05 UTC