W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > October 2000

comparing DAML-ONT and OIL (was Re: semantics of daml)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:38:35 -0400
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20001013143835W.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I did a quick run to put together a VERY brief outline of the
characteristics of DAML-ONT and OIL-Standard.  This is only the briefest of
outlines, and many of the points herein could (and should?) be expanded
considerably for a true comparison of DAML-ONT and OIL-Standard.

Peter Patel-Schneider


				OIL-Standard		DAML 1.2

Semantics			denotational		English
				complete, unambiguous	partial, ambiguous

  Meaning of a collection	always conjunctive	usually conjuctive
  of statements						sometimes disjunctive
								(domain from RDF)

Capabilities

  Built in Classes		thing, nothing		thing, nothing

  Primitive Classes		yes			yes
  Defined Classes		yes 			maybe, ugly

  Class Hierarchy		yes			yes, from RDF
  Property Hierarchy		yes			yes

  Equivalence			yes (defined classes)	maybe
  Disjoint, Disjoint Cover	yes			yes

  Inverse/Transitive Properties	yes			yes	

  Union/Intersection		yes, class constructor	yes, class definition
  Complement			yes, class constructor	yes, class definition

  Domain Restriction		yes, conjunctive	yes, disjunctive (from RDF)
  Range Restrictions		global and local	global (from RDF) and local
  Filler Restrictions		local (and global) 	local (and global)
  Cardinality Restrictions	local (and global)	global only

  Sets				yes			yes

  Lists				no			yes  

  Defaults			no			yes

  Individuals			yes			yes

  Concrete Types (int, ...)	yes			yes

Reasoning

  Specification			complete		incomplete

  Completion Possible		no			no
  Least Partial Model		no			no

  Difficulty			EXPtime complete (?)	unknown, at least NP hard
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 14:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:37 GMT