W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:15:36 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080421091536.A57E5BEEC@nelson.w3.org>


ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Michael Schneider
On product: 

In OWL 1 there was, in addition to OWL DL and OWL Full, an OWL DL language which was based on RDFS semantics, see AS&S sec. 5.4 [1]. 

This language shared most of its semantic conditions with OWL Full. But it was different from OWL Full in that the different parts of the OWL universe (the class extensions of owl:Thing, owl:Class, owl:ObjectProperty, etc.) were demanded to be pairwise disjoint (see the table given in sec. 5.4).

The relationship between this RDFS-based OWL DL and the abstract syntax-based OWL DL (or perhaps better: the description logic-based OWL DL) was stated in Theorem 1 of sec. 5.4. In short, this theorem stated that exactly the same entailments "G1 |= G2" hold in both languages, *if* G1 and G2 are valid OWL DL ontologies in RDF graph form. 

The WG has to decide whether to create such an RDFS-based OWL 2 DL language, or not.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.4>
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 09:16:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 April 2008 09:16:14 GMT