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 18:07:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200404022307.SAA11563@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

I had written:
>The design principle we agreed to for OWL Lite was ease of implementation.

Dan Connolly pointed out:

>We agreed on exactly what our records say we agreed on.


>I find both ease of implementation and the point of view of
>persons reading/writing ontologies in the recorded motivation for
>OWL Lite:
>"OWL Lite supports those users primarily needing a classification
>hierarchy and simple constraints. For example, while it supports
>cardinality constraints, it only permits cardinality values of 0 or 1.
>It should be simpler to provide tool support for OWL Lite than its more
>expressive relatives, and OWL Lite provides a quick migration path for
>thesauri and other taxonomies. Owl Lite also has a lower formal
>complexity than OWL DL"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.3

Indeed, this is not as strong a position as I had remembered.  But
where, in the above, is the bit about it being easier to read and write?  
Implied by "a quick migration path" perhaps?  Hmm.  

>(perhaps you meant design goal, rather than design principle,
>but ease of implementation is not among our design goals either
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-goals )

Nope.  I meant a design principle.  Something to drive and evaluate the 
choice of the OWL language features put into OWL Lite.  But as you point
out, the record doesn't show consensus on using implementability in this
way.  That's the danger of speaking from memory instead of from the record.
I stand corrected.

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 18:07:41 UTC

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