Re: Can there be a decidable subset of OWL FULl?

Hi Shengping Liu --

At 11:36 PM 6/29/04 +0800, you wrote:

>Hi,
>   When trying to use OWL in real applications, I¡¯m in trouble:....

You may be interested in trying the Internet Business Logic system.

It has expressive and decidable inferencing.

It is live online at www.reengineeringllc.com .  The author- and 
user-interface is simply a browser, and non-commercial use is free.

You may like to study and run the example RDFqueryLangComparison1, and 
others that are provided.  Of course, you can also write and run your own 
examples.

HTH,  -- Adrian

At 11:36 PM 6/29/04 +0800, you wrote:

>Hi,
>   When trying to use OWL in real applications, I¡¯m in trouble:
>1) If I use OWL DL, most of constructs in RDF(S) can¡¯t be used, such as
>statement about statement, class as instance. The corresponding RDF
>become only a web-ized DL Abox language and arguably can be still called
>RDF. We know that one design goals of RDF is "anyone can make statements
>about any resource". But when using OWL DL, RDF loses its interesting
>characters.
>2)If I use OWL FULL, RDF(S) is okay, but reasoning in OWL full is
>undecidable and there are no inference engine for OWL FULL.
>
>I hope there can be a decidable subset of OWL FULL that is fully
>compatible with
>RDF(S)(in syntax and semantics) and is more expressive than RDF Schema.
>Since reasoning in RDF(S) is decidable, is there a conclusion that
>RDF(S) is the most expressive and decidable language under the RDF
>semantics?
>
>One application of the decidable subset of OWL Full is RDF Schema
>mapping, for example, mapping a class in RDF Schema_A to an instance in
>RDF Schema_B.
>
>Thanks for any comments.
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>Shengping Liu(ÁõÉýƽ)
>Department of Information Science, Peking University, China.
>
>Phone: 86-10-62757175
>Mail:  lsp@is.pku.edu.cn
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:40:41 UTC