W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Using OWL to define itself?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030310.093013.113980957.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: costello@mitre.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
Subject: Using OWL to define itself?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:59:46 -0500

> 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?

No, this ontology cannot be considered to be a definition of any species of
OWL.  It is at best a document that one might look at to get some idea of
what can be said in the OWL syntax.

> 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

Many of the differences between OWL Full and OWL DL would not show up in
this sort of document.  It might be helpful to illustrate some of the
differences between OWL DL and OWL Lite in this way, but I'm not sure how
much could be so captured.

Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 09:30:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC