Re: WOWG: Report from WWW 2003 - OWL presentation/issues

Jim Hendler wrote:


>>>  The reality of our design is more like:
>>>
>>>      [OWL Full]
>>>      /        \
>>>  [RDFS]      [OWL DL]
>>>      \       [OWL Lite]
>>>       \       /
>>>  [FO fragment of RDFS]
>>
>>
>> That's a nifty diagram. I like that.


Me too, for the diagram, but I disagree with the FO part of FO fragment of 
RDFS. Simply [fragment of RDFS] would do. As I understand it, the intent is 
that this is merely the intersection of OWL Lite and RDFS.

The FO bit is questionable: RDFS is first order, just Ian prefers looking 
at it in a different way, and insists on calling something that does not 
map classes into (well-founded) sets as non-first order, which, as far as I 
can tell, is simply incorrect.

Jeremy