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

SEM: light reviewing of OWL ASS document [Re: semantics document moved]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 02:18:15 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFD235F9D.A87E72C3-ONC1256C68.00057A1F-C1256C68.00073202@agfa.be>


I think I (at last) understand the document...
It seems as if there is a lot inspired by sound,
complete and efficient reasoners more specifically
DL reasoners (e.g. 3 times that side condition that
properties that are transitive...).

On the other hand it seems to me that there are also
other decidable fragments of OWL Full (thinking about
Prolog's for instance) so why not at least mention
that (and it's indeed another big job to work out the
details to the same level as OWL DL, but why not?).

Datatyping seems to converge with RDFCore work, which
is good news, just that I see owl:Datatype; is that
also co-extensional with rdfs:Datatype in OWL Full?

Use of the terms OWL Lite, OWL DL, OWL Full is not
always there (e.g. fast OWL is there 5 times and
OWL as such also a couple of times) but I guess
that can be fixed easily.

Typo in 3.4    ... is llowed
also near the end of the 4. table there are 2 triples
  <URI reference> <URI reference>)
  <URI reference> "<lexical-form>")

I'm still thinking that more oneway IF's in 5.2
are feasable (e.g. for domain and range).

In 5.1 VRDFS is not including rdfs:Literal and rdf:nil
and in Appendix A VRDFS in not including rdfs:Literal
Why different? Is it a good idea to explain why these
exclusions are there in VRDFS and VOWL?

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 20:21:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT