W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2004

Re: types of OWL

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:53:35 -0500
To: ror <galvinr@tcd.ie>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040402125335.GD18293@homer.w3.org>

* ror <galvinr@tcd.ie> [2004-04-02 13:16+0100]
> Hello,
> I've been trying to find the underlying differences between the different
> types of OWL languages i.e: OWL DL, OWL Lite and OWL full.
> Are all of these languages forms of Description Logic? As far as I can gather
> OWL Lite is less expressive to suit users who want to incorporate semantics
> into their applications without the over complexity of OWL DL and full.
> Does OWL lite use different forms of axioms than full or DL
> If someone could set me straight on the differences I would be very grateful!

Here's a sketch.

"Full" is the full OWL language, an RDF-based language that extends RDFS with 
constructs useful for describing the terms used in Ontologies. "OWL DL"  
is a profile of that language created with special care to make it easy 
to work with in the Description Logic tradition. "OWL Lite" goes further in 
that direction, by ommiting some constructs known to be tough to work with
using DL techniques.

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 07:55:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC