- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:47:09 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 9:32 AM -0400 6/17/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> >Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:18:40 -0400 > >> >> > >> >> In certain contexts, I think OWL would be useful with some ontologies >> >> preimported. >> > >> >Well, this would not be OWL. >> >> With due respect Peter, this must either be the dumbest thing I ever >> heard you say or, more likely, we're somehow not understanding each >> other. Most of our tools enable the user to start with ontologies >> pre-imported -- for example we are building a cancer research project >> that starts from the NCI OWL Lite ontology. It comes preloaded. If, >> on the other hand, we started from having the user hit a button and >> import that ontology, it would not come preloaded. I cannot see how >> this would make any difference to whether something is OWL or not. >> >> My suspicion is there is some deeper issue which you are responding >> to. If we're just arguing about how the term "is OWL" is used, then >> it isn't worth much time, because the use of our vocabulary is out of >> our control once we publish it. >> >> -JH > >Well, I am arguing over what it means to be an OWL reasoner. That's fine - we agreed that the definition of an OWL reasoner was not something the WG was going to define except for what is already in TEST, and thus I welcome the continuation of this discussion on rdf-logic. > > >Suppose, for example, that I built a tool that took in a set of XML/RDF >documents (the premises) plus one other XML/RDF document (the consequent) >and that always answered ``YES''. It could claim that this was a reasoner >for OWL, but with the following ontology preimported: > > ... > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#foo" /> > <owl:Thing> > <rdfs:subClassOf> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#foo" /> > <owl:maxCardinality rdf:datatype="xsd:NonNegativeInteger"> > 0 > </owl:maxCardinality> > </owl:Restriction> > </rdfs:subClassOf> > <rdfs:subClassOf> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#foo" /> > <owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="xsd:NonNegativeInteger"> > 1 > </owl:minCardinality> > </owl:Restriction> > </rdfs:subClassOf> > </owl:Thing> > ... > >Is this a reasonable thing to do? Of course not. However, it is up to us >to ensure that our specs do not admit this as an OWL reasoner. > > >Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone claiming to have built to >tool that determines OWL entailment with the above ontology (or any other >collection of ontologies) added to the other premises. Such a tool might >be quite useful. It is just that this is not OWL, and should not be >advertised as OWL. > > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider >Bell Labs Research >Lucent Technologies -- 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 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 09:47:32 UTC