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

Re: A proposal for the fragments document

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:46:29 +0000
Message-Id: <B28790FE-C8A8-4B46-99A2-0781CB40301C@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>

Zhe,

According to my understanding of your presentation at the Manchester  
F2F [1] and the documentation for Oracle 11gR1 [2], OWL Prime is very  
similar to -- and includes most if not all of the features of -- the  
fragment that the current fragments proposal refers to as OWL-R. Is  
this correct? If not, could you please describe the major differences?

Thanks,
Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/ 
att-0094/20007-OWLPrime-ForOWL1.1WG_F2F1.pdf
[2] http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/appdev.111/b28397/ 
owl_concepts.htm


On 13 Mar 2008, at 23:32, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Jim!
>
> (since I am cc'ed...)
>
> I remember that you have already put a related question in our last  
> week's telco w.r.t. pD*. I admit, pD* suddenly entered the  
> discussion without any announcement and without any deeper  
> explanation on why it was brought into play. And now, there even  
> exists a second proposal for a rule language (OWL-R-Full), which is  
> apparently pretty different from Zhe's and your original  
> suggestion, which was OWL-Prime.

[snip]
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 10:47:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 10:47:28 GMT