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

Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 Apr 2002 21:31:26 -0500
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1020220287.30005.423.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 19:34, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
[...]
> This lead to the proposal of "RDF Schema on steroids" as a compliance
> level 1 for OWL (see [1] for what this includes). 
[...]
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0329.html

That looks like the vocabulary that I use most of the time.

Hmm... I'll miss local range restrictions; I use
them occasionally. But I can live without them,
or I can live with them being in "level 2" or whatever.


from [1], for reference...
>Written out in full, this amounts to:
>
>RDF Schema stuff
>    primitiveclass   
>    subClassOf
>    subpropertyof    
>    domain
>    range
>    Property
>    named & unnamed Individual
>
>(In)equality
>    sameClassAs
>    samePropertyAs
>    sameIndividualAs
>    differentIndividualAs
>    
>Property characteristics
>    inversOf
>    transitive
>    symmetric 
>
>Plus: functionality of properties (= at most one value for a property)
>      (with the usual side condition that this cannot be applied to 
>       transitive properties, same side condition as in DAML+OIL)
>plus: datatypes (unclear at this moment what this means precisely,
>      pending on RDF Core decisions.
>
>
>Frank,
>Deborah.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 22:31:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT