- From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:01:21 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> Yes, but in their OWLED06 paper, the romans show how these problems > are avoided when DL-Lite_R and DL-Lite_F are merged in a more careful > way (don't ask me for details, though :). And then, there are other > versions such as DL-Lite Horn and DL-Lite Krom proposed by Alessandro, > Diego, and Misha. Also tractable (and you may ask for details :). Well, the DL-Lite literature is a bit of a wild jungle... > > > The selection of DL-Lite_R was motivated by the fact that it is a proper > > extension of the DL subset of RDF-Schema, which provides role-inclusion > > axioms but not functionality, and therefore DL-Lite_R is a language that lies > > in between such DL subset of RDF-Schema and OWL Lite. > > > > In any case, I agree that these choices should be discussed and that we could > > do a better job in presenting all (or most of) the variants. Also, as Carsten > > I have a different opinion. If we try to present all variants of all > fragments, we are lost and we will have an endless (and confusing) > list of fragments. Moreover, we are bound to be outdated extremely > quickly. I believe that we should make clever choices, instead of > being exhaustive. Ok, I agree with this. We should think about which ones should be selected. I made my choices when writing the documents, but certainly these choices should be refined. Bernardo > > greetings, > Carsten > > -- > * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * > * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de * > > *********************************** Dr. Bernardo Cuenca Grau Research Fellow Information Management Group School Of Computer Science University of Manchester, UK http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg ************************************
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 01:01:42 UTC