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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:28:59 +0100
Message-ID: <3ED5B6BB.8040909@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>



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
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 03:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT