W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > March 2003

Fwd: Using OWL to define itself?

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:11:42 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f12ba92e840afe6@[]>
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org

>Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:00:34 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:59:46 -0500
>From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
>Organization: The MITRE Corporation
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
>Subject: Using OWL to define itself?
>X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/3E6C8C42.BED3F85B@mitre.org
>Resent-From: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> archive/latest/3373
>X-Loop: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Sender: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-rdf-logic.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0
>	version=2.43
>Hi Folks,
>In the OWL Reference, Appendix B is a definition of OWL using RDF
>Schemas (actually, it also uses OWL features, so it is not strictly
>using RDF Schemas).  I believe that this document should be considered a
>definition of OWL Full, correct?
>Is there a similar document for OWL DL, and for OWL Lite?  That would be
>very useful, especially for identifying the differences between Full,
>DL, and Lite.  /Roger

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
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	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 02:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC