ISSUE-111

userintentsignaling

There's no way to signal the intended semantics of an OWL document

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Raised by:
Bijan Parsia
Opened on:
2008-04-03
Description:
Right now, we have no way for a publisher to indicate what the intended semantics (OWL DL, OWL Full, or even RDFS) of an OWL Document. In most cases, it's possible to guess well based on the "used vocabulary" in the document because the semantics coincide, but in some cases the sanctioned entailments diverges (e.g., finite owl:Things). It would be nice if we could give authors some way to indicate what semantics they intended e.g., by introducing mime types or by having some ontology properties.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (from ivan@w3.org on 2009-02-14)
  2. Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (from bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2009-02-14)
  3. Re: draft response for LC comment 31 (from ivan@w3.org on 2009-02-14)
  4. draft response for LC comment 31 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2009-02-13)
  5. Agenda TC 03/09/2008 (from hector.perez-urbina@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-02)
  6. Agenda TC 27/08/2008 (from hector.perez-urbina@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-26)
  7. change to Primer re: resolution of ISSUE-111 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-08-20)
  8. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-20)
  9. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-19)
  10. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-19)
  11. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-19)
  12. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-19)
  13. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-19)
  14. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-19)
  15. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-19)
  16. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-19)
  17. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-19)
  18. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-19)
  19. RE: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-08-19)
  20. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-18)
  21. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-18)
  22. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-18)
  23. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-18)
  24. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-18)
  25. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-12)
  26. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-12)
  27. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hoekstra@uva.nl on 2008-08-12)
  28. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-11)
  29. Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-08-08)
  30. ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-08)
  31. Re: intendedProfile (ISSUE-111) (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-06-26)
  32. RE: intendedProfile (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-26)
  33. owl:intendedProfile (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-06-24)
  34. Re: Issue-111 another angle and questions (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-06-10)
  35. Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-06-04)
  36. Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-06-03)
  37. Issue-111 another angle and questions (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-05-28)
  38. Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-05-21)
  39. RE: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-05-21)
  40. Re: owl:intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-05-21)
  41. Re: owl:intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-04-24)
  42. Re: owl:intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-04-24)
  43. RE: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-04-23)
  44. owl:intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111) (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-04-22)
  45. (interesting) history for ISSUE-111 mimetype (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-04-17)
  46. ISSUE-111 (userintentsignaling): There's no way to signal the intended semantics of an OWL document (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-04-03)

Related notes:

2008-04-17 15:17:13: Historical note:

In WebOnt this was
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.13-Internet-Media-Type-for-OWL

with a proposal that was initially accepted (by the WG) for a media type that had an optional parameter for intended entailments

http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/owl-mediatype.html

but later dropped.

The reason for dropping, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0132.html
item 2.3 about 3/8 way down,
was schedule issues, and a belief that it was non-essential to have a mime type. Evan Wallace and Mike Dean were against in a straw poll but abstained.






had
[Jeremy Carroll]

2008-04-22 15:14:29: Accept with the restriction that a route other than via mime type is necessary, as mime type was rejected by webont http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0132.html and there is no new information.

[Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-08-20 20:09:45: Closed in telecom of 2008-08-20 [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2008-08-22 11:49:40: See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-20#ISSUE__2d_111
[Ian Horrocks]

Changelog:

2008-04-03 21:27:54: Created issue 'There's no way to signal the intended semantics of an OWL document' nickname userintentsignaling owned by Bijan Parsia on product , description 'Right now, we have no way for a publisher to indicate what the intended semantics (OWL DL, OWL Full, or even RDFS) of an OWL Document. In most cases, it's possible to guess well based on the "used vocabulary" in the document because the semantics coincide, but in some cases the sanctioned entailments diverges (e.g., finite owl:Things). It would be nice if we could give authors some way to indicate what semantics they intended e.g., by introducing mime types or by having some ontology properties.' non-public [Bijan Parsia]

2008-04-17 15:17:13: Issue dissociated from any product

2008-04-22 15:14:29: Issue dissociated from any product

2008-04-22 15:14:29: Status changed to 'open'

2008-08-20 20:09:45: Issue dissociated from any product [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2008-08-20 20:09:45: Status changed to 'closed' [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2008-08-22 11:49:40: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chairs, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker, originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.231 2009/11/16 15:00:54 dom Exp $