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

Re: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:08:00 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <6690130.1039561680@[]>


Thanks for your summary of the discussion and lay-out of the options:

Deborah McGuinness wrote:

> I see the following options emerging from the discussion surrounding adding
> hasValue to OWL Lite.
> This attempts to choose highlights from the email discussion with the
> subject OWL Lite semantics as well.
> 1 - do not add any notion of hasValue to OWL Lite.
> [...]
> 2 - add hasValue to OWL Lite with the semantics as specified in OWL DL.
> [...]
> 3 - add hasValue to OWL Lite with a restricted semantics.  A restricted
> semantics was proposed by Jeremy.

I also largely follow your trade-off of the options:

3 is not feasible at this time (on top of which I support earlier discussion 
this week which makes it clear that it's not even an attractive option)

2 makes OWL Light so close to OWL DL that OWL Light would loose its right to 
exist (remember that also Jeremy's proposal was aimed making OWL Light 
lighter, while this option would make it significantly heavier)

This leaves option 1 to me. Apparently, this is just the way the world is:
those people who will want to use has-value will end up using OWL-DL (nothing 
wrong with that).
Wanting OWL Lite to be *light* and at the same time include all the
most-frequently-used primitives is simply not going to work (and why should 

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 17:08:03 UTC

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