Re: Chair's Concerns re: Test Cases and CR

sorry - i found this in my outgoing buffer as not having been sent.

---------
i agree that i did the initial ontology modeling in a language that did 
not have intersection but did have oneof.
That ontology was converted into owl as the starting point for the guide.
I would agree with mike though that the use of oneof  it is not really 
gratuitous in its modeling - i do agree that there are other ways to 
model meaning that but I would agree with Mike that it is more natural 
in many cases to use oneof.

thus i would not want to change the modeling to something less natural 
but would be happy to have a note in the guide that says that there are 
other ways to model the meaning in a manner that can be used more 
efficiently by reasoners.

Deborah

Smith, Michael K wrote:

>I agree with most of what has been said in this thread.
>
>But, I would argue that use of oneOf is not really gratuitous.  We
>needed at least one example in order to present the concept.  And the
>selected uses are very similar and natural.  The example ontologies
>must be DL and because they were contrived to use all of the language
>it should not be surprising that they are a little odd.
>
>That it has implications for efficiency for certain classes of
>reasoners is important to know, and alternative, more efficient
>formulations would be good to present.
>
>Ian, what is the preferred, more efficient formulation?  Do you make
>the constants into classes and define WineFlavor as a union rather
>than collection?  And then what?  How do you rewrite 
>
>  <WhiteWine rdf:ID="StGenevieveTexasWhite">
>    <locatedIn rdf:resource="#CentralTexasRegion" />
>    <hasMaker  rdf:resource="#StGenevieve" />
>    <hasSugar  rdf:resource="#Dry" />
>    <hasFlavor rdf:resource="#Moderate" />
>  </WhiteWine>
>
>Create an instance of a class Dry, to plug into the hasSugar relation?
>
>- Mike
>
>Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.
>EDS - Austin Innovation Centre
>98 San Jacinto, #500
>Austin, TX  78701
>
>phone: +01-512-404-6683
>email: michael.smith@eds.com
>  
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] 
>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:52 AM
>To: Frank van Harmelen
>Cc: webont
>Subject: Re: Chair's Concerns re: Test Cases and CR
>
>
>
>On September 29, Frank van Harmelen writes:
>  
>
>>
>>Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>the extensive use of oneOf in the wine and food
>>>ontologies is largely gratuitous (it seems to be mainly the result of
>>>their origin in a language that supported this constructor but did not
>>>support unions of classes), and is setting a bad example to
>>>prospective users - it encourages the use of statements that are, in
>>>most cases, stronger than is needed/intended, and that are known to be
>>>difficult to reason with.
>>>
>>>One further point. Given the elimination of oneOf, then the wine and
>>>food ontologies could even be transformed into OWL Lite, although this
>>>would result in some mangling of the syntax (in order to capture
>>>negation and disjunction).
>>>      
>>>
>>Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have code for that if needed.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think all these points:
>>
>>1) be careful with oneOf's
>>2) without oneOf's, an ontology can often be transformed from DL into
>>    
>>
>Lite
>  
>
>>3) that step can even be done automatically
>>
>>are all very good points to make in whatever "style/how-to" guide we  will
>>    
>>
>be 
>  
>
>>writing.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed, but w.r.t. point 1, our advice would carry more weight if we
>were seen to be taking it seriously in our own example ontologies!
>
>Ian
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Frank.
>>   ----
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941