Re: Fragments - specific proposal

In my proposal I was very clear - RDFS 3.0 Full would indeed be just  
those language features (although, again, II am willing to  
negotiate).  RDFS 3.0 DB (or whatever) would include restrictions as  
in my answer to Carsten.
  -JH



On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:02 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
> Subject: Re: Fragments - specific proposal
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:00:43 +0100 (CET)
>
>> 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?
>>
>> greetings,
>>  		Carsten
>
> As well, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments does not provide a
> definition of RDFS 3.0, just a set of vocabulary terms.  One cannot
> expect that RDFS 3.0 is the syntactic subset of OWL Full using just
> these terms, because of the appeal to OWL Prime, which is decidedly
> *not* just a syntactic subset of OWL Full.  Before RDFS 3.0 can be
> evaluated there needs to be a complete definition of what it is.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180