- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:31:33 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <2AC92247-CCAA-4D1C-9328-4532C6E37933@cs.rpi.edu>
Peter- As best I can tell, Oracle has not released a formal definition of the 11g support on their site, the sites that you are looking at are from people looking at some of the different things Oracle has proposed - the set I used is from their first announcement and a presentation at the SemTech conference, which was back in March. If they've decided to cover more of OWL, that's great! Anyway, I wasn't, in your words, justifying it by claims that its constructs correspond to Oracle, just pointing out the resemblance to the early Oracle definition. I think the language stands on the other properties, which i outlined We have an Oracle rep on this committee, maybe Zhe Wu knows the details -JH On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> > Subject: Re: wiki page on fragments extended > Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:48:34 -0500 > >> Uli - I should have included the URI - it's http://www.w3.org/2007/ >> OWL/wiki/Fragments - not connected to the Tractable Fragments >> document since I didn't think it belonged there at this point >> -JH > > This page claims that the constructs in the RDFS 3.0 proposal are > "almost identical to those included in Oracle's OWL Prime", but the > most > complete information I can find > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/DatabaseAndOntology/ > 2007-10-18_AlanWu/RDBMS-RDFS-OWL-InferenceEngine--AlanWu_20071018.pdf > indicates that OWL Prime includes hasValue, allValuesFrom, > someValuesFrom, and complementOf which are not in the RDFS 3.0 > proposal. > The addition of these constructs makes OWL Prime very different > from the > proposed RDFS 3.0. > > The other OWL subsets supported by Oracle also appear to be quite > different from the proposed RDFS 3.0. OWLSIF appears to include > hasValue, allValuesFrom, and someValuesFrom (as they are in pD*). > RDFS++ appears to only add sameAs and InverseFunctionalProperty to > RDFS. > > So, although RDFS 3.0 may indeed be a reasonable fragment, I do not > think that it can be justified by claims that its constructs are > similar > to what Oracle supports. > > > 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
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 14:32:18 UTC