- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:39:44 -0400
- 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>
Ian, 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 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OracleOwlPrime#Definition_of_OWLPrime_.28RDFS_3.0.29 Thanks, Zhe 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