- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:01:14 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
As you'll recall. I was a big fan of the DAML+OIL situation, and feel that if we'd stayed closer to that model in OWL 1.0 we might have been better off. However, there was some functionality that was perimtted (or at least not forbidden) in DAML+OIL (cf. inverseFunctional Datatypes) that was not reflected in OWL DL. I am very happy to move forward to the past in this case :-) -JH p.s. One thing I didn't like in DAML+OIL was the QCR solution which required special syntax, so I guess we're back to the past in several ways :-) On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I'm wondering what would be the differences between this proposal and > the DAML+OIL situation. Recall that DAML+OIL has a reference document > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference, which provides an informal > description of what DAML+OIL means and covers all RDF graphs, and a > semantics document, > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics, which provides > the DAML+OIL formal meaning (which is about half-way between OWL 1.1 > semantics and OWL Full semantics). > > peter > > PS: As an aside, it appears to me that making one change to the DAML > +OIL > semantics would move it very close to the OWL 1.1 semantics. The > change > would be as follows: > > <?O1,?R,?O2> <IO(?O1),OI(?O2)> in IR(?R), provided that IO(?O1) > <= AD, > **and the triple produces no other semantic constraints* > "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 Thursday, 7 February 2008 01:01:32 UTC