- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:21:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> Subject: Re: wiki page on fragments extended Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:48:34 -0500 > Uli - I should have included the URI - it's http://www.w3.org/2007/ > OWL/wiki/Fragments - not connected to the Tractable Fragments > document since I didn't think it belonged there at this point > -JH This page claims that the constructs in the RDFS 3.0 proposal are "almost identical to those included in Oracle's OWL Prime", but the most complete information I can find http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/DatabaseAndOntology/2007-10-18_AlanWu/RDBMS-RDFS-OWL-InferenceEngine--AlanWu_20071018.pdf indicates that OWL Prime includes hasValue, allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom, and complementOf which are not in the RDFS 3.0 proposal. The addition of these constructs makes OWL Prime very different from the proposed RDFS 3.0. The other OWL subsets supported by Oracle also appear to be quite different from the proposed RDFS 3.0. OWLSIF appears to include hasValue, allValuesFrom, and someValuesFrom (as they are in pD*). RDFS++ appears to only add sameAs and InverseFunctionalProperty to RDFS. So, although RDFS 3.0 may indeed be a reasonable fragment, I do not think that it can be justified by claims that its constructs are similar to what Oracle supports. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 13:38:33 UTC