- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:38:13 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Guus Schreiber wrote:
> I think we should consider the UML class model also as background
> reference.
Below an indication of how RDF Schema, OWL Light and Full OWL score on
these.
I'm using [1] for OWL Light and Full OWL, not taking into account the proposed
changes since then.
I'm also assuming semantic containment between RDF Schema and OWL Light
(and of course between OWL Light and Full OWL).
- subclass relation
already in RDF Schema
- disjointness,
in OWL Light
- completeness (through constraints)
only in Full OWL
- attributes (datatype properties) and relations (object properties)
in OWL Light
- cardinality constraints for attributes and relations
in OWL Light for n=1
only in Full OWL for arbitrary n
- default values for attributes
Not even in Full OWL
- class-scoped attributes (same for every member of class)
in OWL Light
- part-whole relations between classes (strong=composition,weak=agrregation)
Not even in Full OWL
- abstract vs. concrete class, root and leaf class
Not even in Full OWL
- tagging through stereotypes and tags
Unsure what this means (FvH)
Question: is any of the above reason for satisfaction? concern?
Frank.
----
[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 16:39:04 UTC