- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:58:11 +0000
- To: www-archive@w3.org, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc-ing ivan and bijan since they seem interested.
I am going to start a variety of threads on www-archive, with the intent
that we pick the threads up on the tuesday meeting.
I take it that the theme of the discussion is trying to evaluate powder
design options to get appropriate balance between 'correctness' with
respect to the more mathematical bits of the SW Recs (OWL and RDF), and
usability by the intended user base.
The ideal outcome would be one where small amounts of attention to
detail, make little to no impact on usability, but enhance 'correctness'
and hence interoperability with off-the-shelf SW tools.
Poor outcomes would be ones in which tension between the two objectives
(correctness and usability) become conflict; and either POWDER users
feel that usability is sacrificed for ill-defined and elitist logical
goals, or the SW specs, at least their logical parts, are simply ignored
because they are unhelpful.
I'll try and start these threads:
- reification, or what?
I dislike reification, and will argue against it, and in favour of
the design in the powder-dr WD, with minor mods.
- resource descriptions, as a semantic extension??
RDF semantics makes no provision for examining the IRIs used for
resources. This is not addressed by OWL 1.0 or OWL 1.1. This is
fundamental to POWDER; and should, in my view, be addressed by formally
creating a suitable semantic extension.
- resource descriptions and monotonicity
I got a bad non-monotonic feeling while reading the powder-grouping
WD; interestingly it was while reading bits that had clearly been
written with the issue in mind :(
- the subclass relationship
I take the reified rdfs:subClassOf triple in the example that has
circulated in earlier e-mail to be a response to a request to be more
formal, or more OWL like, in response to the powder-dr WD. However, the
design in the WD looks more user-friendly to me, if it could be made to
work ...
- tools and motivations
Why o why are we bothered?
Jeremy
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 15:58:45 UTC