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

Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:36:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030102.073621.07061511.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 19:54:09 -0800

[...]

> > 6 - A new top level section, to become section 5.0 is added.  In this
> > section we say that OWL Full uses the same vocabulary as OWL DL, but
> > relaxes two features of OWL DL.  It then lists the following two
> > things<ul>:
> >
> > <li><b><i>InverseFunctionalProperty (datatypes):</i></b> OWL Full
> > allows inverseFunctional Property to be applied to datatype
> > properties.  (and a short description that this is desirable for
> > allowing database-key like functionality ) >/li>
> >
> > <li><b>Classes as Instances:</b></i> A short description of what this
> > is and when it could be desirable.  The words on this in the
> > requirements document (this was a requirement) coupled with a simple
> > example (either from wine or the one on airplane flights we heard at
> > first f2f)
> > </ul>
> 
> ok - do pat and peter and ian think that captures all the differences?

It does not.  One of my recent messages gives a set of requirements for
OWL/DL ontologies in graph form, which is stated quite differently and has
more differences than mentioned above.

peter

PS:  My requirements for OWL/DL graphs are incomplete, as I noticed this
morning.
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 07:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT