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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:01:14 -0500
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1F8E5155-8428-4908-88E9-C1E13E320C63@cs.rpi.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

As you'll recall. I was a big fan of the DAML+OIL situation, and feel  
that if we'd stayed closer to that model in OWL 1.0 we might have been  
better off.  However, there was some functionality that was perimtted  
(or at least not forbidden) in DAML+OIL (cf. inverseFunctional  
Datatypes) that was not reflected in OWL DL.  I am very happy to move  
forward to the past in this case :-)
  -JH
p.s. One thing I didn't like in DAML+OIL was the QCR solution which  
required special syntax, so I guess we're back to the past in several  
ways :-)


On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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*
>

"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 Thursday, 7 February 2008 01:01:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2008 01:01:33 GMT