- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:57:03 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On February 11, Jonathan Borden writes: > > 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? No it is *NOT* correct. Please see [1]. > 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? Please see [2]. Regards, Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0239.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0088.html > > Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:58:00 UTC