RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

On January 27, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> > That's a reasonably clear abstract of what I'd like to see,
> > but it suggests that our specs specify
> >	vocab: Dialect -> PowerSet(URI)
> 
> > such that
> >	owl:intersectionOf \in vocab(OWL Lite)
> 
> > would be well-defined. Guide/Overview/Reference
> > are sorta written that way, but we've organized
> > the documents so that they're informative; the
> > normative material is in AS&S, but it doesn't
> > define a vocab function like that (does it?).
> 
> Your point is correct, there is no such simple mapping from a vocabulary to
> a sublanguage.
> 
> Without the owl:intersectionOf blemish the difference between OWL Lite and
> OWL DL can be largely motivated by the additional vocabulary. I think for
> instance the guide would be harder to read and harder to write if it
> correctly reflected AS&S on this point.
> 
> Since at the moment all our documents are informative "works in progress", I
> don't believe that the higher status that we have agreed to give to AS&S,
> when it is a recommendation, is particularly relevant to the discussion of
> what the consensus opinion is.
> 
> I suspect that most of the WG understand Guide/Overview/Reference better
> than AS&S.
> Hence my belief that the majority position is that owl:intersectionOf is not
> in OWL Lite.

This "problem" w.r.t. owl:intersectionOf was pointed out long ago and
discussed at length (I have neither the time nor the inclination to
trawl through logs to prove the point, but I'm sure that I can't be
the only one who remembers this). The authors of the Overview in
particular have long been aware that owl:intersectionOf is
"implicitly" part of Lite. My understanding is that they preferred not
to emphasise this fact in the overview given that it didn't appear
explicitly as part of Lite in the AS&S.

Of course I would be grateful said authors would come forward and back
me up (of not) on this!

Ian

> 
> (Again, I don't care - I would vote concur on the substantive issue).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 16:14:46 UTC