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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:27:42 -0500
Message-ID: <008101c2d3bf$e63962d0$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Deborah McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, "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>

Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed.

>
> 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.
>

I am trying to look at this from the point of view of a newbie to OWL --
perhaps this is the exact person which might be drawn to OWL Lite. Ok, let's
assume this person has some knowledge of RDF Schema.

Let's assume I want to use "rdfs:comment" with a simple class I have
written -- seems reasonable. Now I've got to declare this "rdfs:comment" as
some type of owl:AnnotationProperty -- huh???

I think that both of the above characterizations may be fundamentally
different. On one, OWL Lite is a simper OWL DL. On the other OWL Lite is a
supercharged RDF Schema. Those are two rather different viewpoints, no? In
order to explain the rationale behind severely restricting classes as
objects in OWL Lite, you *have to* explain benefits of DL, hence OWL Lite
users *do* have to understand (at least something about) DL.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 19:52:13 GMT

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