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

RE: types of OWL

From: ror <galvinr@tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:18:19 +0100
To: www-rdf-logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4070932F@ntserver-e2w2.tcd.ie>

Hey guys,

I've been working on a Peer-to-Peer application that shares metadata or 
semantics about shared resources as well as the resources themselves. Besides 
basic inference capabilities offered by platforms such as HP's JENA, I fail to 
see real value being added by Semantic Web technologies to web applications.

How far are we away from seeing a real difference being made by Semantic Web 

I would also be interested to hear peoples opinions about the suitability of 
such technologies for ad-hoc configuration in mobile networks.



>===== Original Message From ewallace@cme.nist.gov =====
>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.

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 18:19:45 UTC

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