- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:46:29 +0000
- To: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Zhe, According to my understanding of your presentation at the Manchester F2F [1] and the documentation for Oracle 11gR1 [2], OWL Prime is very similar to -- and includes most if not all of the features of -- the fragment that the current fragments proposal refers to as OWL-R. Is this correct? If not, could you please describe the major differences? Thanks, Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/ att-0094/20007-OWLPrime-ForOWL1.1WG_F2F1.pdf [2] http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/appdev.111/b28397/ owl_concepts.htm On 13 Mar 2008, at 23:32, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi Jim! > > (since I am cc'ed...) > > I remember that you have already put a related question in our last > week's telco w.r.t. pD*. I admit, pD* suddenly entered the > discussion without any announcement and without any deeper > explanation on why it was brought into play. And now, there even > exists a second proposal for a rule language (OWL-R-Full), which is > apparently pretty different from Zhe's and your original > suggestion, which was OWL-Prime. [snip]
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 10:47:26 UTC