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

Re: OWL Lite vs OWL DL-Lite

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:30:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3E4BE45E.E5D668CE@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I think ian's examples are valid real world examples of usefulness of OWL Lite DL.

Essentially they are characterized by an application being able to take advantage
of a reasoner's ability to classify descriptions correctly.  this requires iff
semantics.

Similarly I think there are users who come more from a modeling orientation who
would like a simple transition path up from rdfs and would benefit from an OWL
lite that does not require them to understand the limitations imposed by DL.

d

Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On February 12, Jonathan Borden writes:
> >
> > 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.
>
> This isn't my view; as far as I am concerned OWL Lite is just a cut
> down version of OWL DL with similar characteristics but easier to
> implement.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> This is a very strange thing to say. I imagine that I will work mostly
> with Lite as it is enough for many applications and easier to
> implement.
>
> > 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.
>
> We *were* clear about it up until recently!
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > Jonathan
> >

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
0941
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 13:32:10 GMT

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