- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:30:15 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On January 27, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > Thanks Ian for this pointer - it does seem highly relevant to the content of > my proposal. > > > 4. If you really did succeed in eliminating the ability to express > > "complete" classes in OWL Lite, you would make it useless in a wide > > range of important applications (e.g., see [3]). > > > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0088.html > > > > I repeat one part of that: > > [[ > We have also done a lot of work recently on a publish and subscribe > system using DAML+OIL/OWL. This is similar to the above service > discovery application in that subscribers describe the kinds of > "publication" (e.g., messages) they are interested in, and messages > are routed to subscribers according to their descriptions. > ]] > > If I have understood correctly, without the complete class descriptions the > subscriptions could not be made. For instances if I want messages both about > HP and the SemanticWeb, I can say that the messages I want are subClassOf > both of these, but without the complete part of the class description any > particular message that has been categorized as in both, may fail to be in > my subset of the intersection. Correct. > Personally, I think we could decide that publish and subscribe type > applications need to use OWL DL; but I emphasis - I want to concur with the > majority here. My original message ([3]) was in support of my strong disagreement with this statement. Why do you want to impose the *significant* additional overhead of OWL DL reasoning on a very wide range of applications? Ian > > Jeremy >
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 10:27:08 UTC