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

Re: A proposal for the fragments document

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:39:44 -0400
Message-ID: <47DEE520.20106@oracle.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@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>


OWLPrime is indeed similar to OWL-R. OWLPrime has a bit support for 
disjointWith and complementOf. OWLPrime does not support intersectionOf, 
unionOf, oneOf, or number restriction.

The core vocabulary constructs of OWLPrime are listed in



Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 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 21:42:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC