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: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:54:53 -0500
Message-ID: <001301c2d556$05547500$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>

Peter Crowther wrote:

>
> > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
> > 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.
>
> Jonathan, it's rare that I disagree with your points, but I am not
> convinced that this is a valid assumption in all cases.  I would expect
> some people to be drawn to OWL Lite because it seems to be a superset of
> RDFS; I would expect others to be drawn to OWL Lite because of the
> particular point it occupies on the continuum of expressiveness vs.
> tractability of reasoning.  Basing our arguments on RDF seems
> inappropriate unless we have some idea of the relative sizes of the two
> communities.
>

Sure. I meant this as a trial balloon. I agree that unless we have an idea
which is the larger group needing OWL Lite, the argument should not be based
*solely* on RDF.

Personally, I'd fall into the latter group -- using OWL Lite given the
efficiency of implementation. On the other hand my applications will likely
tend to have a DL bent, coming from the healthcare arena.

I am not saying that we should change things, rather acknowledging that
there is a cognitive difficultly in migrating from RDF Schema to OWL Lite --
indeed such folks might be better off migrating from RDF Schema to OWL Full
in many cases, and perhaps we ought warn folks a bit better about this
potential issue.

Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2003 20:17:50 GMT

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