W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Auto: public-owl-comments@w3.org autoreply

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 07:27:14 -0500
Cc: site-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <AC7B542D-709A-4F91-8ECF-56F1B098B071@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Aug 5, 2014, at 5:57 AM, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> Email sent to public-owl-comments@w3.org currently elicits and automatic reply stating that "You should receive a response from the Working Group with a few weeks". This is not appropriate given that the working group closed several years ago. Is there any way to change the message in the automatic reply?

Hi Ian,

We'll definitely update this. Thank you,

Ian

> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: W3C Postmaster <postmaster@w3.org>
>> Subject: Auto: public-owl-comments@w3.org autoreply
>> Date: 5 August 2014 11:48:55 BST
>> To: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments on OWL. You should receive a response from the Working Group with a few weeks.
>> 
>> ----- original message: ----------------------------------------------
>>> From horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk Tue Aug 05 10:48:55 2014
>> Received: from relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.166])
>> 	by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
>> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
>> 	id 1XEcIX-00080T-UT
>> 	for public-owl-comments@w3.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:48:55 +0000
>> Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207])
>> 	by relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
>> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
>> 	id 1XEcI5-0004JO-r7; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100
>> Received: from dhcp3-nat.cs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.88.5] helo=[192.168.18.104])
>> 	by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
>> 	(Exim 4.69)
>> 	(envelope-from <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>)
>> 	id 1XEcI5-0005s1-3g; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
>> Subject: Re: issue in OWL SS&FS and bug in mapping from RDF graphs
>> From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
>> In-Reply-To: <B9A8436B-1520-4D8B-BB1C-FF1F5ED0CBC3@nuance.com>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:47:23 +0100
>> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org,
>> Boris Motik <boris.motik@cs.ox.ac.uk>
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Message-Id: <4F5D44A1-0307-4924-A197-99D63ABFD798@cs.man.ac.uk>
>> References: <B9A8436B-1520-4D8B-BB1C-FF1F5ED0CBC3@nuance.com>
>> To: Peter Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>,
>> Michael Wessel <wessel@racer-systems.com>
>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
>> X-Oxford-Username: coml0201
>> Received-SPF: none client-ip=163.1.2.166; envelope-from=horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk; helo=relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk
>> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
>> X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.300, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3
>> X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XEcIX-00080T-UT 9e687837c2c7a2fc39f198b506c89403
>> 
>> Dear Peter and Michael,
>> 
>> Thanks for highlighting these issues. I finally got around to adding it =
>> to the list of errata (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL_Errata).=20
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Ian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Apr 2014, at 22:09, "Patel-Schneider, Peter" =
>> <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The OWL Structural Specification and Function-Style Syntax states for =
>> most syntactic constructs with an arbitrary number of arguments that =
>> these arguments are considered to be a set under structural similarity.
>>> =20
>>> This causes no problems for many of these syntactic constructs but =
>> there are a few where removing duplicates changes the meaning of the =
>> construct.
>>> =20
>>> For example, according to the wording in section 9.1.3 of SS&FS
>>> =20
>>> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:foo ex:bar )
>>> =20
>>> implies that ex:foo is empty, which is very different from=20
>>> =20
>>> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:bar )
>>> =20
>>> It would not be easy to simply change these constructs to take =
>> multisets because the OWL API would have to be changed.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> I propose the following fix:
>>> =20
>>> 1/ The functional-style syntax requires that the arguments to =
>> DisjointClasses, DisjointObjectProperties, DisjointDataProperties, and =
>> DifferentIndividuals and all but the first argument to DisjointUnion all =
>> be structurally different.
>>> =20
>>> 2/ When converting the triple x owl:disjointWith y where x and y are =
>> structurally similar the axiom SubClassOf( CE(x) owl:Nothing ) is =
>> produced.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> This is not an ideal fix by any means, but a better fix would require =
>> much more significant changes in deployed software.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> =20
>>> =20
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 12:27:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:46 UTC