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

Re: OWL Lite's restrictions on the use of the OWL vocabulary

From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:59:36 +0800
Message-ID: <00b901c2f796$258455e0$9c0b77ca@xobjects>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

[...] 
> > It seems that the another part of the abstract syntax is as follows:
> > 
> > axiom ::= 'Class(' classID modality { annotation } { super } ')'
> > modality ::= 'complete' | 'partial'
> > super ::= classID | restriction
> > 
> > Yes, it allows the range be either a class identifier or a property
> > restriction.
> > 
> > How about the domain of an owl:equivalentClass statement (OWL Lite)?  
> >
> > Just classID ?  or 
> > 
> > classID plus restriction (as in  1/ above)?
> 
> According to S&AS, just classID.

Thanks for your clarification.

> > BTW,  Is the modality in OWL DL [2.3.2.1. OWL DL Class Axioms]
> > 
> > same as the modality in OWL DL [2.3.1.1. OWL Lite Class Axioms]?
> 
> Yes, is there any reason to think otherwise?

Without explicit statement, it may lead to other understanding, such as:

'partial' may mean 'disjointWith' as well as 'subClassOf'.

'complete' may mean 'unionOf' as well as 'equivalentTo', even other boolean combinations.  

So I think some explicit statements about the modality in OWL DL [2.3.2.1. OWL DL Class Axioms]
should be added to clarify this issue.

BTW, why owl:Nothing is not designated to be part of OWL Lite?  

[...]

> > 
> > Yuzhong Qu
> > 
> 
> peter
> 

Yuzhong Qu
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 10:00:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:43 GMT