W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Fragments - specific proposal

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:00:43 +0100 (CET)
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712101158180.3505@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Carsten Lutz wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>> 2 - RDFS 3.0
>>> I propose we name a subset called RDFS 3.0 which is less than OWL Lite
>>> - aimed primarily at universals - i.e. named classes and properties,
>>> no restriction statements involved.
>>> There should be a version of this which is provably polynomial within
>>> certain restrictions (at least no redefinition of the language
>>> features, possibly
>> Then it would IMHO be appropriate if some of the supporters of RDFS
>> 3.0 would state precisely what this tractable fragment is and prove
>> that it is tractable. Otherwise, I feel I am discussing a ghost.
> I think Jim refers to:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments
> which posted some times ago.

Thanks, I know that page. But to me Jim's remark doesn't sound as if
referring to that page.  He says that "There should be a version of
this which is provably polynomial". Since I think that polynomiality
is a very important property for fragments of OWL, I would like to
understand what precisely that version is. Is it the one on the page
you refer to? If not, what exactly does it look like?


*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 11:01:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC