- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:27:42 -0500
- 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 UTC