- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 May 2003 11:31:10 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On closer examination of the comment, it seems to be more about what goes in OWL DL than what goes in OWL Lite. i.e. this issue is at least as relevant as 5.23: 5.2 Language Compliance Levels http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels Our decision rationale for that one is considerably less elaborate. Let's see... when Welty noted the TAG discussion of profiles and such, I thought our rationale was weak, but then I recall that Reference grew a much better motivation for the Lite/DL/Full situation... let's see if it's got something we could use to satisfy this commentor... Yes, here it is... 1.2 OWL Full/DL/Lite http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Sublanguages that could perhaps be cited from the issues list under 5.2 Hmm... it says "OWL DL (where DL stands for "Description Logic") was designed to support the existing Description Logic business segment and to provide a language subset that has desirable computational properties for reasoning systems." That doesn't seem to be consistent with the rationale for 5.23 of 19 Dec: [[ Unfortunately, there are no know "practical" algorithms for SHOIQ(D+) - it would probably be possible to create some sort of implementation of C2 from the decidability/complexity proofs, but this would not have the "nice" properties I mentioned above, and would be unlikely to be useful in practice (no one has bothered to build such an implementation up until now). ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0239.html Mr. Merry's point, "We're concerned that OWL users should have their expectations met when they use OWL compliant systems." seems well made, no? I'm starting to wonder if we can provide a coherent response without reconsidering issue 5.2. I see Jim offers to try again in his message of Tue, 13 May 2003 11:21:44 -0400, so I'll stay tuned for that. On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 10:16, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 10:04, Dan Connolly wrote: > [...] > > > I'm happy to work on a better answer, but you don't suggest any text > > > for the meat of his comments, > > > > I haven't found the decisions yet. > > I found one by searching for "RESOLVED" and "oneof"... > > Our 12 Dec decision on 15.23 is pretty clearly > relevant: > > "Note that because OWL DL includes both hasValue and oneOf, decision > procedures for OWL DL reasoning are not _currently known_ to have these > properties." > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html > > I'm still investigating... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 12:33:08 UTC