[OEP] : first internals reading feedback (draft 3) [Was RE : Close to final draft of "classes as values" note]

Hi,

As I have proposed during a telconf some people of FTR&D have read the draft and I received some important comments/questions :

For approach 1 it is said that :
	"Applications using this representation can directly access the information needed to infer that Lion (the subject of the LionsLifeInThePrideBook individual) is a subclass of Animal and that AfricanLion (the subject of the TheAfricanLionBook individual) is a subclass of Lion. "

And for approach 2 :
	"An application trying to utilize this relation (for example, to extract books about african lions when asked for books about lions), will need to be aware of this specific approach "

1) People who read the doc tell me that from their point of view in both case applications need to be aware of the choosen approach. An unless an official standard or a de facto standard has been defined, they believe that applications will always need to be aware of the choosen approach.So they don't understand the argument.

2) They don't know what do we mean by "general-purpose reasoner ". In both cases people will use the same reasoner and they don't expect to find reasoner that take into account all the possibilities to "model" things. And the two above scenarios are only two scenarios between other. They only expect to have some common API : classify,verify etc..
So they don't understand why it is said that : "general-purpose reasoner  will not be able to use this information directly" because in both case no reasoner will not be able to use the information directly, because you always need to write specific code and to know the choosen approach (see above), and they don't see why and if the code to write is more complex in one case than in an other.
3) For approach 2 it is said that : "Note however that the individual AfricanLionSubject is also an instance of the Lion class. Therefore, if we ask [..]". 
		- They think that there is  contradiction between this sentence and the 2 sentences immediatly preceding it  above in the doc. Why ? : see the two points above. An other reason is that according to what they have understood about the distinction between OWL Lite/DL/Full it is more difficult to find a OWL Full reasoner than OWL Lite/DL reasoner (they even believe that OWL Full reasoner won't never exist) and so that to implicitly say with this sentence that one of the positive point of the approach 1 is that you can use general-purpose reasoner is very strange/funny.
4) They would like to know exactly if according to the real probability to have OWL Full reasoner,  approach one is reasonable IF YOU want to do some reasoning tasks : in other words they want to know if when they will use a non-Full reasoner with a OWL FULL Ontology  they will have some crash or if they will only have some minor problems ?
5) According to the above remarks they don't want to be oblige to "write" or to think about their own piece of code to visualise the direct consequences of the differences betwen the 2 first approach for the complexity of their application : so they ask, if it is possible, to have for each note and each scenarios on a note a direct link to a piece of code which concretley illustrate the text. Because, as i have written above, the argumentation didn't convinced them.
6) They don't really see, in a concrete way , what do we mean with : to annotate music CDs, book, classes etc.. : in fact they don't have any ideas of the architecure of a real application which use annotations : 
		- do we have to directly annotate the datas (video streams, HTML pages) How is it possible ? They don't really understand how it is possible to annotate books ? Does that mean that we need "annotations DB" etc....
		In fact i think that they would like to have a note on the annotation subject : how to annotate datas according to their nature, what is a good architecture ? Etc...
		Don't you think that a explicit Task Force on this topic will be usefull ?

7) They ask for a set of rules to quiclky evaluate the work they could have to transform an OWL FULL ontology in an DL/LITE one. The would like to have a tool that could concretly help them for this task and also to know the "CLASS" of an ontology (a real one : a big one). They ask if it is possible to be exhaustive and if  there are some chances to have such a tool ? They also ask if it is possible to have an Ontology with one part being LITE/DL an an other being FULL or if the fact to use, for example approach 1, in a very small part of an ontology as a general impact on the "Class" of whole Ontology ?
Thank you very much
Best regards

Marco NANNI

PS : other comments on this note and the n-ary note will follow.


 



-----Message d'origine-----
De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] De la part de Natasha Noy
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai 2004 22:24
À : swbp
Objet : Close to final draft of "classes as values" note




You can find the next (and, hopefully, close to last iteration) of the  
"Classes as values" note at

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004May/att-0019/ 
ClassesAsValues-v3.html

At this point, as we've agreed in the previous telecon, I would like to  
propose this document as an official note.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions.

Major changes:

1. I've added one more approach (approach 4) that approximates the  
solution by identifying the book as a  book about *some* lions. It is  
indeed an approximation, but the question has come up often enough that  
I felt it was worth at least mentioning and explaining what's different  
about such an approach. Please take a look at the considerations there,  
since this stuff is all new.

2. I've changed to real book examples, as Bernard suggested. I used  
rdfs:seeAlso to refer to the isbn site (cool resource indeed)

3. I have not used SKOS properties in approach 3 directly (avoiding the  
addition of another complexity level), but I have mentioned it (and  
also used seeAlso to point to the corresponding SKOS property). I hope  
it's a reasonable compromise.

Natasha