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

RE: types of OWL

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:13:28 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "ror" <galvinr@tcd.ie>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKEOCCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> "OWL Lite" goes
> further in
> that direction, by ommiting some constructs known to be tough to work with
> using DL techniques.
>

From a reasoner's point of view OWL Lite is not that much lighter than OWL
DL (in fact some of the hardest of the OWL Test Cases are in the 'harder OWL
Lite' section, where I was perverse to give implementors a challenge).

The distinguishing feature that makes Lite, Lite (in my view) is that from
the point of a view of a *person* trying to understand (or write) an
ontology it is easier (unless people have been perverse, and expressed
ontologies which conceptually should be in OWL DL, but can be coded up into
OWL Lite).

Two examples are the owl:unionOf or owl:complementOf constructs. If you need
them you should (IMO) be using OWL DL or OWL Full, but it is possible to
abuse OWL Lite to get the same effect. The examples of this abuse in OWL
Test Cases are not intended as examples of good practice, more the opposite.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 08:15:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:48 GMT