- 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
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 UTC