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

Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 04:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205010433350.24135-100000@tux.w3.org>
On 30 Apr 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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.

Yes, it seems a useful subset of DAML+OIL, and a significant jump in
functionality over bare-boned RDF Schema.

> 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
(noting that named-ness is a property of a description of some
 individual, not intrinic to the individual?)

> >(In)equality
> >    sameClassAs
> >    samePropertyAs
> >    sameIndividualAs

Is there a story for why we really need all three? sameIndividualAs
is the main contribution. Are the other conveninence properties
useful enough?

> >    differentIndividualAs
(for symmetry, one might expect 'differentClassAs' etc too)


> >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)

So is this daml:UniqueProperty but not daml:UnambiguousProperty ?

UnambiguousProperty is the single most useful DAML+OIL construct in my
experience. It is particularly useful in a Web context, since it helps
workaround the problem that many things in practice can't be readily
identified by URI. Omitting it would I suspect lead to many people
creating their own profile, consisting of all this stuff plus
UnambiguousProperty.

Anyway, this is looking good...

Dan

> >plus: datatypes (unclear at this moment what this means precisely,
> >      pending on RDF Core decisions.
> >
> >
> >Frank,
> >Deborah.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 04:41:07 GMT

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