W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: OWL Lite vs OWL DL-Lite

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:14:10 -0500
Message-ID: <004401c2d234$0d7fb200$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> On yesterday's Semantic Web Coordination Group telecon [1] and in a
> less formal session following it (same log) there was, yet again,
> discussion of the issues of how RDF, RDFS and OWL fit together --
> there is concern that we haven't explained this well in some of our
> documents, and it may cause problems come LC time.  The problem is
> that by going with what we once referred to as our "1-dimensional"
> approach to Lite subset of DL subset of Full, we convey the idea of
> an upgrade path in which RDFS documents can "easily" be upgraded to
> Owl Lite.  Problem, of course, is that this is not really true --
> RDFS is easily upgraded to OWL Full (using the Lite vocabulary
> subset) and several of our implementors - HP, Protege, various DAML
> sites, have expressed an interest in supporting what is essentially
> our un-named sublangauge -- OWL Lite language restrictions with Full
> Semantics.

I guess this all depends on what folks want OWL Lite to be. My take is that
OWL Lite is lite from an editing point of view, and not necessarily much
lighter than OWL DL from a reasoning point of view -- is that essentially
correct? If so, we could always do:

OWL DL as a subset of OWL Full. (easier reasoning)

OWL Lite as another subset of OWL Full. (easier editing)(this is your OWL
flite).

I guess the question is: who has a need for OWL Lite as a subset of OWL DL?

Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 20:37:04 GMT

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