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

Draft OWL Lite resolution path ACTION-87

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:35:18 -0500
Message-Id: <68969BB2-265A-4C69-9CEB-99103E79C377@gmail.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Sent this to Jim and Jeremy, and haven't heard anything back, so  
assuming it is worth sending to the WG.

1) What we need to check
   a) Every current valid OWL Lite ontology is valid in OWL 1.1 DL.
   b) Every OWL 1.1. Lite, when interpreted using the OWL 1.1 DL  
semantics, has the same set of entailments.

2) Assuming that this is true: We will write a NOTE to this effect.  
The note will explain
   a) Original motivation for OWL Lite
   b) Current understanding of OWL Lite (not well distinguished from  
a computational point of view)
   c) Recognizing potential educational utility of OWL Lite as it  
exists now
   d) Fact of backwards compatibility
   e) Explain what we think design criteria for fragments should be,  
and directing the reader to the fragments document.

Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 08:35:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC