- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:09:43 +0100
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 09:10:29 UTC
Alan, Jim (I changed the subject line and removed a direct reference to the ISSUE to untangle the thread...) I have a technical question/clarification on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments As far as I know (but people who are much more familiar with the reasoning algorithms than I am can prove me wrong) one of the issues with OWL-Full is that OWL-Full allows statements on 'itself', so to say. Ie, I can, in OWL-Full, make a statements on the core vocabulary of the language itself (I can say that rdf:type is functional, for example). Among other aspects, OWL-DL makes a strict separation of the core terms and does not allow any statement changing their semantics (well, they do not make sense in DL terminology). I was wondering whether RDFS3.0 cannot include the same sort of restrictions. Such a variant of OWL might be even easier to handle and implement without loosing real functionality. Have you guys met any applications in your practice that would exploit this self-definition facilities? Again, more savy people might prove me wrong in that this is not an essential problems for, say, an RDFS3.0 reasoner; in which case this mail is just an extra noise on the mailing list:-) Thanks Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 09:10:29 UTC