- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:08:48 -0600
- To: Cristian Cocos <cristi@ieee.org>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Nov 23, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Cristian Cocos wrote: >> But do not confuse the OWL 2 RL syntactic profile (which in fact is a >> syntactic fragment of OWL 2 DL) with the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules > > Thank you. The RL profile I'm talking about is this: > http://goo.gl/PLXRe, which I assume is what you call "OWL 2 RL > syntactic profile," right? > >> The syntax of OWL 2 Full is the RDF abstract syntax [1], i.e. any RDF graph >> is a valid OWL 2 Full ontology. > > Thanks, though not being an RDF aficionado, it would help me more if > you used (the binary-relation restriction of) FOL as a term for > comparison. I seem to vaguely recall that via the reification > mechanism, RDF goes beyond FOL, RDF does not go beyond FOL. There is no reification 'mechanism' in RDF, and the RDF semantics of reification are so minimal as to pose no threat to FO expressivity. Pat Hayes > hence OWL 2 Full also does that. Is > that true? If so, I'd be tempted to regard this as the most glaring > distinction b/w OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 Full. > > Many thanks, > > C > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 19:09:28 UTC