W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:30:33 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230900c1861aeb5b70@[10.0.0.233]>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org

At 9:39 AM +0000 11/19/06, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>On Nov 18, 2006, at 1:40 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>>  Sure. And there are large TBoxes from life sciences (for which the 
>>EL++ fragment was developed...but EL++ includes qualified number 
>>restrictions...so we sort of have to add them to the whole).
>[snip]
>>  Of course, none of us, at all, have done a formal market survey, 
>>so we're all giving impressions. Impressions are better at 
>>determining positives rather than negatives. We all hear, "rational 
>>subsets!" but perhaps you didn't hear, "Qualified number 
>>restrictions" (and, in EL++, they unite).
>[snip]
>
>SIgh. Ian points out to me that I got confused. EL++ does not 
>include QCRs, but it does include a form of complex role inclusions 
>(which was a motivation for adding them to OWL 1.1).
>
>Mes apologies.
>
>Cheers,
>Bijan.

Bijan - for those of us who aren't OWL insiders, how about a pointer 
to this EL++ thing, whatever it is.
  -JH
-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science			http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2006 14:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT