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

RE: types of OWL

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:09:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200404022009.PAA11342@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org


Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>> "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).

I respectfully disagree.

The design principle we agreed to for OWL Lite was ease of implementation.
In the end though, the difference between DL and Lite really only seems 
significant for DL reasoners.  Lite is not a significantly simpler language 
to learn, and I can't see how maxCardinality 2 is any harder to understand or 
write then maxCardinality 0 or 1.  These days, I don't even think about Lite, 
but I am often asking myself if my OWL is still DL.

-Evan
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 15:10:50 GMT

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