- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:59:19 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 1 May 2008, at 08:39, Ivan Herman wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> OWL EDL (for EL++ DL) >> OWL RDL (for relational DL) >> OWL DLP (for description logic programs) > > Actually, these are not bad at all... > > Can someone solve a mystery for me? Where does the 'EL++' > terminology come from? I can relate, technically, both to RDL and > DLP, but not to that EDL because of that (I am not knowledgable of > Description Logic...) Carsten could say more, I imagine, but my understanding is that "EL" is modeled on "FL" (early and very weak, but also not very robust) and "AL" (the core of ALC, i.e., Attribute Logic with Complement) and the calligraphic E which indicates Existentials. (e.g., you can have the logic ALE as well) Early DLs usually included universal quantification as a minimal feature. The EL family turns that on its head and takes existentials as key. Perhaps surprisingly (but very cooly) it turns out that EL can be much more robustly extended than AL/FL like langauges while remain tractible. The ++ indicates that there are additional features over basic EL. See: http://dli.iiit.ac.in/ijcai/IJCAI-2003/PDF/048.pdf Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 07:57:21 UTC