- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:34:03 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p05111702ba1a481f3761@[10.0.1.2]>
(This message follows those by Peter, Pat and Ian) The formalists heard from, here's my "scruffy" response EASE of implementation: What Jeremy suggests is quite appealing to me because there is good evidence that it IS easier to implement -- in fact, the code foe a program with a considerable subset of Jeremy's OWL Lite proposal can be found in the 1987 AI textbook "AI Programming" by Charniak, Riesbeck, McDermott and Meehan *. Current implementations: In fact, a great many implemented AI systems use essentially what Jeremy proposes -- these are the systems that gre primarily from the frame systems (remember that discussion from very early in our group??) - examples of a number of these tools can be found in the 1999 "Ontology Management Workshop" that AAAI ran [1]. In these systems, the prevailing use has NOT been classification, and I'd argue that most of the "only if"s grow out of the need for classifiers (this is a simplification, I admit, but would take much more bandwdith to be specific). However, in many cases people build the ontology separately from classification (thus not needing most of the class reasoning in OWL). For example, in all the tools built by my current group [2], we assume that either we are importing an ontology from elsewhere, or that someone is extending one by adding classes and properties to existing places in an ontology. In these cases, we are able to support many of the "if" entailments but not the only-ifs (c.f. my mexican restaurant example summarized by Deb in [3]) In short, under Jeremy's subset many current systems will already be able to handle OWL Lite, under our current definition they can't. (btw, everyone of the systems that I know of include HAS-VALUE, but only with the "if" semantics) SEMANTICS: Pat and Ian claim Jeremy's proposal is somehow significantly different semantically than the current one. This confuses me - what Jeremy proposes is still a proper subset of OWL DL, so I'm not sure why this one is so different from our current as to make trouble - can one of you explain? ------------------- * - sorry, this book predates the web and I can't find the code on the web. [1] http://www.aaai.org/Press/Reports/Workshops/ws-99-13.html [2] http://www.mindswap.org/downloads.shtml [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0038.html -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 08:37:55 UTC