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

Re: owl:LiteOntology?

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:53:11 -0400
Message-Id: <p05111707b9dba2add6ac@[130.54.21.80]>
To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 3:32 PM -0400 10/22/02, Mike Dean wrote:
>I notice that we currently have no way of indicating to
>tools (e.g. an "OWL Lite Validator" which checks for
>sublanguage conformance) which level of the ontology
>language the ontology author intends to be using.  As a
>lightweight means of accomplishing this, I propose that we
>define subclasses of owl:Ontology corresponding to each of
>the language levels (with whatever names we eventually
>choose).
>
>	Mike

Mike - how about instead of subclasses, we simply invent a "keyword" 
field.  My reason for preferring this is that it then becomes 
extensible - but also because if it will be easier for a tool to scan 
for ontology declarations if it doesn't need to do inferencing to get 
there.

I'd suggest something like

<owl:ontology  owl:level="lite" rdf:about="">
   <owl:imports .../>
   <owl:version .../>
</owl:ontology>

If I've read the new RDF documents correctly, this is legal, clean 
and an easy way to provide that mechanism.
  -JH
p.s. I can live with the subclassing, just find this somewhat 
preferable as it will make things a little easier for my tool 
builders.
-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 20:53:23 GMT

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