From: Deborah McGuinness (dlm@ksl.stanford.edu)
Date: 04/02/02
since we expect to discuss owl light discussion, i am cross posting my webont response to the first proposal here. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0323.html text copied below: ================ Re: WOWG: first language proposal Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:25:11 -0800 Thanks for your work on the proposal. I have been offline but am back now and am making comments on the proposal. I totally support the motivation of getting the frame-like qualities back in the language and am mostly in agreement with the first sketch http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-sketch.html Although I would make some tweaks. One general question is how did things end up in point 2 – the frame-part Vs. point 3 – the axiomatic part? I would like for one motivation for the distinction to be to include the portions in the frame part that are expected to be used routinely by the general public. I would claim a secondary motivation is to attempt to include the “standard” notions in the “average” frame system in this class. If you buy into this motivation, then I think we should include value restrictions in the frame part. I would also consider putting non qualified number restrictions in this portion. I have analyzed a lot of dl knowledge bases as well as a lot of frame knowledge bases (in particular in classic, assorted other dl kbs, okbc, ontolingua, snark, etc.) and find that value restrictions and at least min cardinality 1 and quite often max cardinality show up with great frequency. If we keep this mentality, it is not clear that inverse, transitivity, and disjointness must stay in the frame part although it would be my preference to keep them there. In http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/motivation.html Some cardinality is reintroduced which I support. The proposal would allow min card 1 & max card 1 but would NOT allow mincard 1 and max card 2 in the frame portion. I think it is a common frame notion to include this second thing and it is also a common frame representive issue to allow exactly 2 values. I do not require this in the light frame portion but I would like not to make people go over to the axiom portion to state this. I also support that http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/motivation.html includes local range of property. I think this is critically important to have in the “easier frame portion” and my reading of the first sketch did not allow it. I am not in support of only 2 parts – the very light frame part and the axiom part. I am in support of 3 parts – the light frame part, - the more comprehensive frame part (including things like max cardinality or exact cardinality other than single-valued) - the axiom part. If people agree with this breakdown. I am willing pick up joint editing responsibility of the language proposal with the new break down. If you prefer no additional editors but like the proposal, I am willing to do a separate phone discussion or provide separate input to generate the next round. deborah Frank van Harmelen wrote: > As per our action item from March 7, we have prepared a first language > proposal, for discussion in this weeks teleconf, and as the basis for further > work by the language focus group. > > At http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/ > you will find three documents: > > - A short motivation of our design and choices (2pgs) > - An annotated example to give you the flavour (walkthrough) (5pgs) > - The language definition as a simple grammar (5pgs) > > We suggest you read the documents in this order. > > EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: > > Our proposal for the OWL Knowledge Base Language comes in two parts: > > 1. The first ("light") part is loosely based on the frame idiom found in the > frame-style systems that have been used in AI for decades. This idiom has been > extended with commonly found ontology modelling idioms and a number of > features that are important in the Web context. > This "light" version will provide a lower entry threshold to the language, > while still providing much of the required expressiveness. > > 2. The second ("full") part is very close DAML+OIL. > > Peter Patel-Schneider, > Ian Horrocks > Frank van Harmelen. > ---- Mike Dean wrote: > We'll have our weekly telecon tomorrow (April 2) from 4-5pm > EST, 1-2pm PST, and corresponding times in other locations. > > The dial-in numbers are > > U.S.: 800-955-9331 > > outside U.S.: +1-904-779-4741 > > If you're asked, the chairperson is Jack Cater (one of my > coworkers) or Mike Dean. > > A parallel logged IRC session will be available on the > #joint-committee channel at irc.daml.org (see > https://www.daml.org/irc/ for the server password). > > Below is a draft agenda; additions are welcome. > > Mike > > agenda updates/additions > > announcements > > minutes deferred > > report from AAAI Spring Symposium Series [1] (? - 10 min) > > DQL news (Richard, et al - 20 min) > > 695 first proposal [2] (Peter, Ian, Frank, et al - 20 min) > > next week > > cancel due to WebOnt F2F? > > [1] http://www.aaai.org/Symposia/Spring/2002/sss-02.html > > [2] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/ -- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST