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

Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:42:58 -0400
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF781BE044.EEC9759D-ON85256BAD.0008C29B@pok.ibm.com>
The idea of the "level 1" conformance was not to *exclude* anything.  The 
idea is to make a lowest common denominator that allows tool-builders (and 
users) to claim "level 1 OWL conformance" PLUS <their favorite 
extensions>.  In our Toulouse discussions, we seemed to agree that MOST 
tools would not implement the full OWL spec, and that it would be 
impossible to outline any kind of "spectrum" of conformance levels that 
would account for the different ways people might extend OWL beyond level 
1.

We agreed in Toulouse that tool builders would always prefer to say we're 
OWL-1 conformant PLUS we support x y z, as opposed to saying, were ALMOST 
OWL conformant, MINUS a b c.

Therefore, "leaving out" a feature from level 1 DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO 
LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!!!!  If you're saying that, I worry you didn't get the 
idea of the proposal.  It simply means the tools you use will have to be 
OWL Level 1 conformant + Dan's favorite features.

-Chris


Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr.
Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055
Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email: welty@us.ibm.com




Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Sent by: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
04/30/2002 10:31 PM

 
        To:     Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
        cc:     www-webont-wg@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: WOWG: compliance levels on next teleconf

 

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.

Hmm... I'll miss local range restrictions; I use
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
>
>(In)equality
>    sameClassAs
>    samePropertyAs
>    sameIndividualAs
>    differentIndividualAs
> 
>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)
>plus: datatypes (unclear at this moment what this means precisely,
>      pending on RDF Core decisions.
>
>
>Frank,
>Deborah.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 21:43:34 GMT

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