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

Re: OWL Full proposal (sort of) - addressing my Action

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:44:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080206.184455.21315728.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

I'm wondering what would be the differences between this proposal and
the DAML+OIL situation.  Recall that DAML+OIL has a reference document
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference, which provides an informal
description of what DAML+OIL means and covers all RDF graphs, and a
semantics document,
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics, which provides
the DAML+OIL formal meaning (which is about half-way between OWL 1.1
semantics and OWL Full semantics).

peter

PS: As an aside, it appears to me that making one change to the DAML+OIL
semantics would move it very close to the OWL 1.1 semantics.  The change
would be as follows:

  <?O1,?R,?O2>   <IO(?O1),OI(?O2)> in IR(?R), provided that IO(?O1) <= AD,
  		 **and the triple produces no other semantic constraints* 
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 23:48:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2008 23:48:35 GMT