- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:06:00 +0100
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On April 25, Guus Schreiber writes: > I strongly support Mike Dean's remarks on local domain/range constraints > and cardinality. Both are so commonly used in ER and O-O data models > that it would be very weird if OWL would not support that at Level 1. > > I should add that "ease/frequency of use" is for me the prime criterion > for putting a language feature in Level 1, and not whether the feature > is difficult to implement in a DL reasoner (not saying this is the > case). I would just like to emphasise that reasoner implementability (DL or otherwise) was not a consideration in the Level 1 suggestion. Rather, it was the lowering of the crossbar for implementors/vendors of all kinds (e.g., of editors etc.) who would like to claim some sort of OWL compliance. The view of those involved in the current Level 1 proposal was that most tools would have to implement significantly more than OWL level 1 compliance in order to satisfy their target market. It is, however, very difficult to determine a total ordering of OWL features that makes sense in all applications. The proposed solution is to make OWL level 1 compliance very easy, and leave it to the market to determine which other features are implemented by tools aimed at different applications and/or user groups. Regards, Ian > > Guus > > -- > A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15 > NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 > Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl > WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html >
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 16:09:09 UTC