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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:43:28 -0500
Message-ID: <001a01c2d2e8$2ba6ea00$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

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
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:06:32 GMT

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