W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: RDFS 3.0 and Oracle OWL Prime (was Re: wiki page on fragments extended)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:31:33 -0500
Message-Id: <2AC92247-CCAA-4D1C-9328-4532C6E37933@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Peter- As best I can tell, Oracle has not released a formal  
definition of the 11g support on their site, the sites that you are  
looking at are from people looking at some of the different things  
Oracle has proposed - the set I used is from their first announcement  
and a presentation at the SemTech conference, which was back in  
March.  If they've decided to cover more of OWL, that's great!
  Anyway, I wasn't, in your words, justifying it by claims that its  
constructs correspond to Oracle, just pointing out the resemblance to  
the early Oracle definition.  I think the language stands on the  
other properties, which i outlined
  We have an Oracle rep on this committee, maybe Zhe Wu knows the  

On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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  
> 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

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 14:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC