- From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:03:31 +0100 (CET)
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > Hi Carsten, Hi Alan, > Given that the fragments document is shaping up, I wonder what the state of > this issue is? The feature overview lists both domains/ranges and property > inclusions. So is this issue ready to close? >From my perspective, this issue was resolved by my wiki page on EL++ which was then migrated into the fragments document and which gives details about the new version of EL++ that I mention in ISSUE-78. The corresponding results and proofs are in an OWLED DC paper. So I am in favour of closing. greetings, Carsten > -Alan > >> There are at least two versions of EL++ that are tractable. These >> two versions are incomparable in expressive power, and the current >> document lists only one of them. The fragment that is not listed >> offers both domain and range restrictions and captures, for example, >> the ontology NCI. What it does not have is role inclusions. >> >> An obvious remedy would be to list both fragments of EL++. However, I >> have hope that we can do better. We might be able to give a fragment >> that (unlike the one listed at the moment) truely resides inside OWL >> 1.1, that has domain and range restrictions, and that has (acyclic) >> role inclusions and is still tractable. *This* is actually the >> fragment that I think should be OWL Light (see ISSUE-78 on >> tractable fragments). I need some time to work out details. -- * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 07:04:16 UTC