> But do not confuse the OWL 2 RL syntactic profile (which in fact is a > syntactic fragment of OWL 2 DL) with the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules Thank you. The RL profile I'm talking about is this: http://goo.gl/PLXRe, which I assume is what you call "OWL 2 RL syntactic profile," right? > The syntax of OWL 2 Full is the RDF abstract syntax [1], i.e. any RDF graph > is a valid OWL 2 Full ontology. Thanks, though not being an RDF aficionado, it would help me more if you used (the binary-relation restriction of) FOL as a term for comparison. I seem to vaguely recall that via the reification mechanism, RDF goes beyond FOL, hence OWL 2 Full also does that. Is that true? If so, I'd be tempted to regard this as the most glaring distinction b/w OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full. Many thanks, CReceived on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 17:47:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:58 GMT