- From: <Dlmcg1@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-archive@w3.org
- Cc: dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU (Deborah McGuinness)
this message is being forwarded for compliance with archiving requests. In a message dated Tue, 23 Apr 2002 6:13:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dlmcg1@aol.com writes: >agreed on ian's points below. >note on differentIndividualFrom, this gives us a coping strategy for handling the unique names assumption. > >also, a question to raphael - are you stating that you believe this proposal is "compatible" and implementable >with rules engines or that it remains to be verified that it is. >thanks, >Deborah >dlm@ksl.stanford.edu (just sending from aol while on the road) > >Deborah > >In a message dated Mon, 22 Apr 2002 4:58:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> writes: > >>On April 22, Frank van Harmelen writes: >>> (Sorry to some of you for resending this, but some people fell of the original addresslist of this msg). Please reply to this copy to make sure your reply reaches all. >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> A small group met at KR'02 (ter Horst, Patel-Schneider, Horrocks, Welty, McGuinness, van Harmelen), discussing the contents of compliance level 1 for OWL. We solicit reactions from those volunteered for this task. Please do this by immediate response, so that we can report back to the WG next Thursday. >>> >>> We propose to use for level 1 RDF Schema on Steroids, >>> (using the terminology from Frank's Thursday 18 April message) >>> with additionally: >>> - properties can be declared functional >>> - datatypes (details depending on resolution by RDF Core). >>> >>> The main motivation for this choice is aimed at tool developers: >>> this level gives tool developers a useful language to aim at that is significantly smaller than DAML+OIL, while imposing as few restrictions as possible on toolbuilders that want to extend beyond this compliance level. Putting in any additional features (such as universal local range restrictions) into level 1 will make it much harder to go beyond this basic level (for example the interaction with existential restrictions). >>> >>> Written out in full, this amounts to: >>> >>> RDF Schema stuff >>> primitiveclass >>> subClassOf >>> subpropertyof >>> domain >>> range >>> Property >>> named & unnamed Individual >>> >>> (In)equality >>> sameClassAs >>> samePropertyAs >>> sameIndividualAs >>> differentIndividualAs >> >>Shouldn't this be differentIndividualFrom? >> >>> Property characteristics >>> inversOf >>> transitive >>> symmetric >>> >>> Plus: functionality of properties (= at most one value for a property) >>> (with the usual side condition that this cannot be applied to >>> transitive properties, same side condition as in DAML+OIL) >>> plus: datatypes (unclear at this moment what this means precisely, >>> pending on RDF Core decisions. >> >>We also need the same side conditions on datatypes and datatype >>properties that DAML+OIL/FOWL has/will have. >> >>Ian >> >>> >>> >>> Frank, >>> Deborah. >>> ---- >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 13:50:55 UTC