LC2 Responses/RA1

From OWL
Revision as of 14:32, 14 May 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: ra.mc@mail.telepac.pt
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Ricardo Amador

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0023.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Thank you for your kind words concerning OWL 2.

As you point out, a change of this sort at such a late stage would cause procedural difficulties. The Working Group will therefore not add this feature to OWL 2. Nevertheless, the Working Group is not treating your comment as irrelevant.

It might be worth mentioning that the OWLED workshops (http://www.webont.org/owled/) are a good place for discussing possible extensions to OWL; I am sure that your participation there would be very welcome.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



From: Ricardo Amador <ra.mc@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:14:06 +0100 To: <public-owl-comments@w3.org> Message-ID: <29AB2E74E4AE4E5EA403B7BF140ADF2A@BREUSCA>

Dear Sirs,

I've been using OWL-DL for about 3 to 4 years. During this period, I've always missed some added expressivity concerning properties. I skimmed through OWL2 (new-features, direct-semantics and quick-ref) documents, and I was very happy to conclude that all of my concerns (with one exception) have been addressed. If I may say so: Excellent work!

For the record, the level of expressivity that I still miss in OWL2 is the possibility to define a property as the union of other (consequently sub) properties. This added level of expressivity, together with the new Disjoint*Properties axioms, would allow me to partition a property into a set of sub-properties (pretty much as DisjointUnion of classes, but for properties). The latter constitutes the actual feature that I miss in OWL2.

I'm aware that the present Last Call phase is not appropriate for proposing/discussing new levels of expressivity. Please excuse me for my bad timing. For what is worth, and out of respect for your work, I'm posting this comment intentionally after the deadline for LC2 comments. If you find this comment to be irrelevant, just ignore it, and please do not waste any more time with it! After all the deadline for LC2 comments has expired ;-)

Keep up the good work, Ricardo Amador