W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Comment/suggestion for OWL Lite

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:33:00 +0200
To: david.h.jones@boeing.com, public-webont-comments@w3.org
cc: Mike Uschold <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Message-ID: <1380584675.1029339180@swpc243.cs.vu.nl>

David,

Thanks for your input.
They provide two very valuable datapoints for the language design


One: you write:

> We have implemented components that support semantic information
> integration.  By-and-large the representation features of OWL Lite support
> what we are doing, and we would expect to transition our tools to OWL Lite
> when it becomes a W3C recommendation.

which is very good news.

Two: You also ask for owl:hasValue to move from Full OWL to OWL Lite, and 
give a good motivation for it (your need for it in data-integration 
projects).

The problem is that this adds rather substantially to the expressiveness (and 
therefore the computational complexity) of OWL Lite. For the same reason, 
enumberated classes are not in OWL Lite (actually, you could encode hasValue 
once you have oneOf, using allValuesFrom with a singleton class).

I can see that as a user, you would want hasValue in OWL Lite,
but as a tool builder, it would make your life significantly harder.
Would that change your mind?

Frank.
   ----

Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl              http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
Department of AI, Faculty of Sciences,  Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
de Boelelaan 1081a, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel (+31)-20-444 7731/7700 fax (+31)-84-221 4294
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 09:33:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:27 GMT