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 07:59:02 -0500
To: ror <galvinr@tcd.ie>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040402125902.GF18293@homer.w3.org>

* Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2004-04-02 07:53-0500]
> * 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.

Re-reading your question, I guess you were looking for more details. I
think the basic situation is that things from DL that aren't in Lite
were taken out on the basis of their being known to be difficult to 
implement. My understanding is that someone should be well on their way
to implementing OWL Lite by studying the published DL literature, whereas
complete reasoning with DL is more researchy...

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 08:00:06 UTC

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