W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: LANG: compliance levels

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:06:00 +0100
Message-ID: <15564.22056.571146.492087@merlin.oaklands.net>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC