- From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:43:58 +0100
- To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 5:09 pm -0700 27/4/02, Deborah McGuinness wrote: >I also strongly supported local ranges in our discussion at KR. (this was >also my first comment on the earlier proposal for rdf on steroids that >without local ranges I could not support the constituencies I talk to most >often). Frank also strongly supported it - he and I seem to speak to people >with similar needs. > >My claim is that this is imperative to usefulness for most e-commerce >applications and most verification applications. To be precise, I was >arguing for universal restrictions on local ranges. >Thus, in to meet Guus' point below, i claim it is imperative for ease of use >for those communities. > >However, I stopped arguing my point when Ian made a point that his >communities require existentially qualified range restrictions. He claims >that it is imperative to his large medical users. >All of us agreed that it was not a good thing to have both in the level one >and thus in order to get some agreement, both sides compromised by not >putting either in level 1. >This is what I thought was the largest concession from what I was looking >for in my optimal level 1. Can't one define existentially qualified range restrictions by having local ranges + min-cardinality? Or are they something else? > >to address mikes suggestion of dropping local ranges from level 2 if they >are not in level 1, i would vote strongly against this. >Local ranges are one of the most heavily used features in the work that I >have done on ecommerce and I would not be as vocal a supporter of >daml+oil/owl/fowl for web applications if we were not to include this in at >the worst level 2. I also think that they are so used that they shoudl be in level 1 > >on cardinalities, while i am a strong supporter of their use in applications >and while I also wanted to get this in level 1, in the effort to gain some >agreement, and since we do allow functional roles (thereby allowing [0,1] >roles), I am willing to have functionality in level 1 while expecting that >many tool developers will market: > >level1 support >level1 support + things of use to their clients. My expection is that >cardinalities will be something added by most tool developers. The main purpose of level 1 is to provide a simplified language for tool developers. So, if we expect them to put cardinality in, why not adding it ourselves? Enrico > >deborah > >Guus Schreiber wrote: > >> I strongly support Mike Dean's remarks on local domain/range constraints >> and cardinality. Both are so commonly used in ER and O-O data models >> that it would be very weird if OWL would not support that at Level 1. >> >> I should add that "ease/frequency of use" is for me the prime criterion >> for putting a language feature in Level 1, and not whether the feature >> is difficult to implement in a DL reasoner (not saying this is the >> case). >> >> Guus >> >> -- >> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15 >> NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 >> Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl >> WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html > >-- > Deborah L. McGuinness > Knowledge Systems Laboratory > Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 > Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 > email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu > URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm > (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 >705 0941
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 15:44:19 UTC