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

ACTION Deb McGuiness: send OWL Lite issues presentation materials to W3C for the

From: <Dlmcg1@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:43:23 EDT
Message-ID: <12.2750903c.2adf61ab@aol.com>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
CC: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
Enclosed is the information I presented at the Bristol meeting concerning OWL 
Lite issues.

Deborah    
dlm@ksl.stanford.edu

===========

OWL Lite Issues:
 
Agenda issues:
 
- new comments:
black pearl/VerticalNet:
            owl liteimportant
            fullcardinality needed
            uniquenames necessary
protégé
            owl liteimportant
            fullcardinality useful/needed
            need unionsemantics for domain/range
            someValuesFromnot supported
            no way tosupport equivalent instances
            currentlyno transitive or symmetric
 
previous themes from comments:
       (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0366.html for more 
details)
-        owl lite important
-        renaming of cardinality needed if using restrictedcardinality
-        hasValue needed
-        consider full cardinality
 
 
- Constructor choice:        driven by public comments means:-      
  ***  rename cardinality constructs:-                
             PROPOSAL:
              Local cardinality notions in OWL Lite:       
             hasExactlyOne  (min 1, max 1)        
             hasAtMostOne    (max 1)        
             hasAtLeastOne   (min 1)       
             hasNo            (max 0)     
(resolution - no change to current naming)

    *** hasValue inclusion   
       (McGuinness will raise this as an issue)
     ***possibly add explicit representation of NOTHING given that it is 
representable 
       (no resolution)

New suggestions from comments:
       ***Raphael’s motivation – datalog implementability.       
              Implications:    
                    a)  no min 1                    
                     b)  no someValuesFrom        
                         note – constraint view could be implemented to 
support a,b above 

New topics:

       ***Connection to FastOwl-frank’s and dlm’s proposal 

       – use restrictions from FastOwl on OWL Lite  thus OWL Lite is a subset 
of FastOwl 

From previous agenda:
--5.2: language compliance levels        
       Public comments supporting OWL Lite:   Xerox Parc, ISI, Protégé,     
VerticalNet/Black Pearl, etc.
       resulting resolution to have OWL Lite



- related – new name for owl lite  (frank took an action item to propose 
names)

-- 5.15: <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.15-Feature-decision-for-CL1-local-range">features for local ranges</A>:  (resolved to stay as is)



--5.16 reopened – consider renaming cardinality

  (stay as is.  Welty to write justification.  McGuinness to point to 
justification in document)
--  5.xx  add hasValue   (McGuinness will raise issue)


Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 20:44:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT