Re: ISSUE 5.18 Unique Names Assumption Support in OWL

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 09:18, Jim Hendler wrote:
> I took an action to move this forward.  I have looked at a lot of 
> options, talked to a lot of people, and have come to the hypothesis 
> that we should leae things as they are -- we provide 
> owl:differentIndividualFrom and don't provide anything else.
> I suggest that doing something else should be left to presentation -- 
> that is, we could  let implementors provide syntactic sugar (applying 
> it to a whole document or a set of terms) and let our successors 
> determine which of these is the "correct" one.   We would thus handle 
> this as we did the cardinality stuff - have a pointer to a discussion 
> that describes briefly what the UNA is, why our mechanism solves it, 
> and suggest that this is a presentation issue
> The unimaginable scope of all the things that could happen on the web 
> with respect to uniquenames is beyond me, and I think beyond the 
> scope of this group to come up with a definitive answer at this time.
>   Can we live with something like this?

I can.

To elaborate a bit:

This looks like a proposal to POSTPONE this issue; to demote
  R12. Local unique names assumptions
  "Users should have the option of specifying that all of the names
  in a particular namespace or document refer to distinct objects."
to an objective; one that we didn't meet.

to update the guide to mention
  - the problem (i.e. the user task)
  - the minimal solution in differentFrom
	(we're not really still calling it differentIndividualFrom
	when it's not constrained to individuals, are we?)
  - any available help in user interface tools, presentation
	syntaxes, etc.
  - the hope that Somebody Else will solve it,
	as expressed in the objective in our (updated)
	requirements document.

Mike/Chris, if this proposal carried, is it clear enough for you
to edit into the guide?

Jeff/Raphael/Jonathan, how about you guys? Clear enough how
to update our requirements?

Or do you need more specific suggested text before you could agree?

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 17:20:26 UTC