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

Re: OWL Lite semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:57:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021208.175729.17082491.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: OWL Lite semantics
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 19:51:37 +0100

> In the current semantics draft, OWL Lite just gets the same semantics as OWL
> DL on the syntactic subset.
> It would be possible in our one-dimensional layering to give OWL Lite a
> reduced semantics.
> This has the following advantages:
> - clearly differentiation between the two
> - much easier to implement OWL Lite so it really becomes an entry level

Is easier implementation actually true?  I don't see any evidence to back
up this claim.

> I attach a modified version of section 5 of the semantics doc that changes a
> few iffs to if-then's, and drops comprehension.
> As far as I can tell, teh vast majority of the entailments discussed in the
> feature synopsis under OWL Lite are preserved, at much easier
> implementability.

Again, where is the evidence for this claim?  Note that just having fewer
inferences does not necessarily make determining entailment easier.  In
fact it can make determining entailment much harder.

> Also we can add hasValue without any difficulty.

Again, where is the evidence?


> Jeremy

Received on Sunday, 8 December 2002 17:58:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC