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

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:28:58 +0000
Message-ID: <47ECBA5A.7000700@hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Michael Schneider wrote:

> I also want these advantages in RDF, not only in functional syntax. 
 > And for the aspect of semantical and computational complexity: The
 > way you suggest to encode negative assertions requires a pretty
 > bit of OWL language features (equivalence, intersection, nominals,
> restrictions, and owl:Nothing). I believe a small rulebased sublanguage 
 > of OWL-Full will easily be out of play here.

Negative assertions seem to me to be well out of scope of the design of 
RDF, and unlikely to be implementable in an interioperable way in 
typical RDF systems.

I think your 'want' here is unreasonable - if you really want this 
expressivity then take the OWL baggage.

Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 09:30:07 UTC

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