- 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
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 UTC