Re: XG W3pm Scope

[apologies to others in the group if this email looks stale.  I haven't 
 had a chance to catch up with this thread yet. ] 

Conrad Bock wrote:

> This was true in OWL 1, but will it be in the next version?  We have
> tooling examples where the above seems to work (ie, you can still reason
> over the instances of, for example, PhysicalQuantitySpace).
>
> This was the point of my previous message: technology moves.  If we gate
> the language based on technology, we're in danger of misreading the
> future, even assuming we have an accurate grasp of the present.  :) 

Technology moves, but one can't arbitrarily pick some non-DL construct 
and assume it will be available in some later version of DL. Decidability 
creates trade-offs in the language design.  As some features are added,
other potential features can become forbidden.  Since the feature
in question is not part of the current standard nor the proposed revision,
and I have yet to hear any DL implementer voice support for it, this 
feature is unlikely to be in any near term revision.  However, user
input has played a strong role in the choices of new features in OWL2.
If this XG thinks that this is an important feature, it might get
more serious consideration.

>  >  I strongly disagree.  First you must know the purpose you have in
>  >  mind for creating these models in this XG.  
>
> Sure, but that's much more general than your concern above.  I'd
> personally like reasoning in general, so much the better if it is in the
> ever-expanding DL.

When I asked about purpose, I had in mind something considerably stronger
than something "someone personally likes".  I was thinking about benefits
of models in RDFS/OWL, that are essential for the effort spent by a member
of this XG to be considered worthwhile.  These may of course vary from
participant to participant, but I had the impression that there was some
shared concerns among those who instigated the chartering of this XG.  


-Evan

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:25:52 UTC