W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: ISSUE 5.18 Unique Names Assumption Support in OWL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 25 Oct 2002 16:20:35 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1035580836.24110.866.camel@dirk>

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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 17:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:36 UTC