- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:10:08 +0200
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Ian Horrocks wrote: > the extensive use of oneOf in the wine and food > ontologies is largely gratuitous (it seems to be mainly the result of > their origin in a language that supported this constructor but did not > support unions of classes), and is setting a bad example to > prospective users - it encourages the use of statements that are, in > most cases, stronger than is needed/intended, and that are known to be > difficult to reason with. > > One further point. Given the elimination of oneOf, then the wine and > food ontologies could even be transformed into OWL Lite, although this > would result in some mangling of the syntax (in order to capture > negation and disjunction). Jeremy Carroll wrote: > I have code for that if needed. I think all these points: 1) be careful with oneOf's 2) without oneOf's, an ontology can often be transformed from DL into Lite 3) that step can even be done automatically are all very good points to make in whatever "style/how-to" guide we will be writing. Frank. ----
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2003 19:10:32 UTC