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

REQDOC: missing/implicit WebOnt requirements

From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:20:26 -0500
Message-Id: <200202191820.NAA23917@cam-mbx1.bbn.com>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
This note summarize some possible requirements, mostly
already addressed by RDF(S) and/or DAML+OIL, that I think
were taken for granted in listing our requirements [1].  It
also includes a list of current DAML+OIL features that were
not addressed by the requirements.  The distinction between
the 2 lists is somewhat arbitrary and not critical.

Deb McGuinness contributed to these lists.

Possibly implicit requirements:

1) URI naming of instances (ability to refer to instances
defined by someone else).  This could be merged with
"Unambiguous term referencing with URIs", which seems to
focus on classes and properties.

2) adding properties to "someone else's" instances.

3) adding properties to "someone else's" classes (ability to
extend a class without subclassing it, ability to split
Restrictions across multiple pages/ontologies).  This goes
with 2, but may conflict with the desire for a greater frame
orientation.

4) enumerated classes (daml:oneOf)

5) closed sets (daml:List, daml:collection).  This could be
included as part of "Ability to state closed worlds".

6) the ability to order property values (e.g. for a list of
authors, or a sequence of events)

In addition, the following DAML+OIL features don't seem to
be referenced in the requirements:

1) local restrictions (the ability to use the same property
in somewhat different ways for different classes)

2) qualified restrictions (cardinalityQ, etc.)

3) daml:disjointFrom

4) daml:UnambiguousProperty

	Mike

[1] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl/ (draft of 7 Feb 2002)
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 13:22:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT