[seek-kr-sms] growl: owl-dl or owl full?!

[Serguei Krivov]

 ...So, my overall suggestion, would be to figure out the necessary 
constructs for the target user group (which I'd be happy to help with), 
figure out how best to present these to the user (again, I'd be happy to

help with this), then figure out if it is representable in OWL-Lite, 
OWL-DL (most likely), or OWL-Full (not likely).

Shawn

It would be really good to know all constructs that we need. May be each
of us, who does ontology or DL design may send   some references as one
encounter the constructs of importance. Of course we shall use subclass
of, instance of etc., the question is about more complex things. I'll be
saving these messages and eventually we shall summarize that. 

My present questions however are more down to earth. For instance the
present growl editor (see cvs) allows to draw subclass-of arrow from an
instance to an instance or from a class to an instance. This is OK for
OWL-full or for F-Logic but not OK for OWL-Dl. Besides , present graphic
editor allows to do any wrong things, say-  is-a arrows from a datatype
to a datatype.   I am trying  to impose a very strict policy which would
not allow to do any wrong things.   The question is how strict it should
be? Ferdinando, Shawn and I seems concur that it should exclude also
owl-full constructs. Any other opinions?

serguei



Serguei Krivov wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I am working on growl editing and have an urgent design issue:
> 
> Should we impose the editing discipline which would allow owl dl 
> constructs only and    do nothing when user tries to make an owl full 
> construct? Some editors like oil-edit (that works with owl now) are 
> intolerant to owl full. Personally I think that this is right since 
> owl-full ontologies are difficult to use. OWLAPI seems also not really

> happy to see owl-full constructs, it reports error, however somehow it

> processes them.
> 
>  
> 
> Ideally one can have a trigger which switch owl-dl discipline on and 
> off. But implementing such trigger would increase the editing code may

> be 1.6 times comparing to making plain owl-dl discipline. I would
leave 
> this for the future, but you guys may have other suggestions (?)
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> serguei
> 
>  
>