W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:39:08 -0500
Message-Id: <p06020403bc8642412a23@[]>
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

At 18:53 +0100 3/23/04, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>>  I may be misunderstanding your question,
>>  but I believe it is quite simple:
>>  if you want to treat classes as instances you are in OWL Full.
>>  There is simply no way to do that in DL or Lite ...
>I know that :))
>So let me put the question otherwise, in terms of best practice.
>- Is it worth the trade-off to switch one's ontology (otherwise DL) 
>to OWL-Full, just to
>allow its classes to be used as objects in 'dc:subject' predicates?

That's a weird way to ask the question.  You mean, is it worth doing 
the extra work to break your naturally occuring model just so that 
you can be in DL?


>Is the problem more clearly set this way?
>Is not it a BP issue?
I would argue this is indeed a BP issue, but probably for WORLD not 
for OPEN... we need to explain why and when you would do the extra 
work (and in every case we have explored it is extra work) to make 
sure your ontology is in the DL profile of OWL.
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:40:20 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:40:25 EST