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 11:30:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030102.113020.113943961.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:58:47 -0500

> 
> wait, this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of differences, 
> it's supposed to be the primary features that can be used in the 
> different sublanguages - as far as I can tell, the primary features 
> that Full offers over DL are the ability to do classes as instances 
> and the ability to have inverseFunctionalProperty for datatype.   I 
> also suggested in other mail that we have a complete categorization 
> of the differences between these sublangauges in the semantics 
> document -- so I'd rephrase Deb's question as "are there other 
> features of Full that should be highlighted in the Features document"
>   -JH


Well, the differences between OWL/DL and OWL/Full boil down to roughly:

1/ pairwise separation between classes, datatypes, datatype properties,
   object properties, individuals, and built-in vocabulary;
2/ no cardinalities for transitive properties or their supers;
3/ no extra triples;
   and 
4/ descriptions can't have loops in them or share structure (except via
   named resources).

Note that neither ``classes as instances'' nor ``inverseFunctionalProperty
on datatypes'' is mentioned here.  Both of these are part of point 1.

If one wanted to provide a quick gloss, one could say something like:

- In OWL/DL a resource cannot be more than one of a class, a datatype, an
  object property, a datatype property, or an individual.  OWL/DL requires
  that inverse functional properties, symmetric properties, and transitive
  properties be object properties, so they cannot be datatype properties.

- In OWL/DL an object property that participates in a cardinality
  restriction cannot be specified as a transitive property nor can it have
  a transitively-specified property as a descendant.

- In OWL/DL all descriptions must be well-formed, with no missing or extra
  components, and must form tree-like structures.

peter
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 11:30:30 GMT

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