Re: [OEP] public comment

Peter,

I agree with you that such an Appendix would be helpful and useful to 
include in the document. Indeed the transformation rules will certainly 
help clarify the differences for many readers. For the moment though, I 
don't think I'll have the time to add it before proposing (in two 
weeks) the note for the first public release. If someone wants to go 
for it before then, please do :)
	
Natasha

On Jun 10, 2004, at 1:06 AM, Peter Mika wrote:

>
> Natasha,
>
> I perfectly agree with all you write. In fact I took the easier
> direction for a start and the other way (from Full to DL) would have
> more practical value.
>
> I just wanted to add one more point to earlier arguments. While 
> thinking
> about this translation I found that it helped a lot in clarifying the
> relationship between the various approaches and understanding them as
> alternatives to expressing what is more or less the same thing. So 
> maybe
> it is useful to include it for the reader of the document (even if
> non-normative and not expressible in web ontology languages) to help
> him/her understand how the concepts/properties used in the various
> approaches relate to each other.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:29 PM
>> To: Peter Mika
>> Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: 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 Thursday, 10 June 2004 17:48:59 UTC