W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2010

OWL FULL or DL?

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:34:05 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, 'Yves Raimond' <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F274@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear all,

The discussion on FOAF has actually taken us on the need to make an important design decision, i.e. decide whether or not we should used OWL DL or OWL FULL.

Clearly, as claimed, FOAF is OWL FULL.  This allows using some features like punning that are useful to us if we want to find a simple solution to have e.g. a property that uses either a concept (object) or a literal (data).

On the other hand, there are voices/concerns about the support of OWL FULL by current implementations of OWL APIs.

Views?

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 09:50:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 September 2010 09:50:22 GMT