Re: OWL Lite vs OWL DL-Lite

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> On February 11, Jonathan Borden writes:
...
> >
> > 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].

[1] is a good point, and one that I don't remember a good answer to. I have
a different take on it.

You seem to say that "oneOf" ought be removed from OWL-DL in order to give
OWL-DL the properties that we've been told it will have -- fast (somewhat)
efficient reasoning. Either "oneOf" does or doesn't belong in OWL-DL, but I
guess I've always thought OWL-Lite to have a significantly different
constituency than OWL-DL.

>
> > 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

Right, ok, but *you* are an OWL-DL person (sorry to pigeonhole you, but
let's be totally clear about this). I am looking to the OWL-Lite folks for
this answer.

People, if *we* can't be clear on this layering/relationship issue between
our set of languages, the rest of the world is going to get terribly
confused -- this could turn OWL into an Ostrich.

Jonathan