OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [regrep] ebXML Registry Profile for Web Ontology Language - a few comments

I may be mistaken - but I have definately seen the clarification and call-out text vis OWL-Lite strongly put in this context.  Did it not make it into the "Introduction" ?
That text exists if not and can be easily added - but I have a feeling its there already...?
Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML Registry Profile for Web Ontology Language
- a few comments
From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Date: Tue, June 20, 2006 10:57 am
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org, NStojanovic@gs1us.org

Nikola Stojanovic wrote:

>Here are some comments on ebXML Registry Profile for Web Ontology
>Language (OWL), Version 1.1, Draft OASIS Profile, June 13, 2006:


>1. Generic


> c. AssociationTypes naming should be consistent and follow
>ebRIM (UpperCase convention, directionability, ...), Also, if
>"HasProperty" is used for rdf:Property should other owl:XXXProperty be
>prefixed in the same way -> "Has"?

A profile like this is trying to capture the metamodel of another
language in ebRIM.  Thus profiles should have more relaxed naming rules
then other ebRIM uses. In this case, the use of "Has" as a prefix of
property is already somewhat misleading.  Properties are first class
entities in RDF/OWL.  

I am not sure of the scope of the above suggestion.  The pattern
owl:XXXProperty seems to only apply to specializations of property such
as FunctionalProperty.  That would be tolerable if undesirable.  However,
application of the "Has" prefix to subPropertyOf and subClassOf would result
in very confusing names indeed.  I would strongly object to such names.

>3. Section 2 - It would be beneficial to state why this profile
>only addresses OWL Lite.

Yes.  I believe that I also asked for this in the earlier round of reviews.

As I understand it, the reason for OWL lite only support is that OWL Lite
reasoning can almost be simulated with an ebRIM based repository and queries,
whereas the additional features of OWL DL and OWL Full just to don't have any
analog in RIM.  This should, indeed, be explained in the profile.


Evan K. Wallace

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]