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

GUIDE Status - 30 Oct 2002 1340 CST

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:04:47 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322141187CD9C@USPLM207>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


I have completed a version of the Guide that I think
suitable for distribution.  Chris Welty has not yet had a chance
to complete his review, but he should by later today.

Before distribution I will globaly replace OWL/Lite, OWL/DL, and
OWL/RDF as soon as we settle on the names we want.

All recommended changes from the October Face to Face meeting
have been made.  I felt it necessary to modify three of them and
a description is included at the end of this message.

One section that I particularly want reviewed by the larger
group is 'The Species of OWL' (too cute?), which is included
below.  Are these characterizations accurate and sufficient?

- Mike

--------------------------------------------------
The Species of OWL

OWL is in fact a set of three, increasingly complex languages. 

o Owl/Lite has been defined with the intention of creating a
  simple language that will satisfy users primarily needing a
  classification hierarchy and simple constraint features. For
  example, while it supports cardinality constraints, it only
  permits cardinality values of 0 or 1. For these reasons, it
  should be simpler to provide tool support for Owl/Lite than
  its more complex relatives.

o OWL/DL includes the complete OWL vocabulary, interpreted under
  a number of simple constraints. Primary among these is type
  separation. Class identifiers cannot simultaneously be
  properties or individuals. Similarly, properties cannot be
  individuals. This variant supports description logic based
  reasoners.

  When we introduce constructs that are only permitted in OWL/DL
  or OWL/RDF, they are marked by "[OWL/DL]".
  
o OWL/RDF includes the complete OWL vocabulary, interpreted more
  broadly than in OWL/DL, with the freedom provided by RDF. In
  OWL/RDF a class can be treated simultaneously as a collection
  of individuals (the class extension) and as an individual in
  its own right (the class intension). Another significant
  difference from OWL/DL is that a DatatypeProperty can be
  marked as inverseFunctional. These are capabilities that may
  be of interest to the advanced user.

===========================================================

Caveats from Bristol changes.

-----------------------------------------------------------
'7. Use vin: prefix always.' 

This seems to make the examples harder to read.  I would prefer
not to make this change.  It also seems more in tune with the
attribute value presentation.  That is we use "#foo" rather than
"http://www.example.org/@@/wine.owl#foo" or "&vin;foo".

------------------------------------------------------------
'11. Modify all properties to form hasProperty.' 

I did this for those things that are really properties, but did
not for relations like 'locatedIn'.

------------------------------------------------------------
'12. In enumerated classes document alternative approach using
unionOf.'

I don't remember what this means and, so far, neither do the any
of the members I have queried.  As written it doesn't make
sense.

Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.
EDS - Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX  78701

* phone: +01-512-404-6683
* mailto:michael.smith@eds.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 15:04:56 GMT

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