Re: changes to document overview (done)

Also for RL, I wonder if we want to say something along the lines of
"The specification of OWL RL, by providing a rule set, offers
implementors the flexibility to reduce or augment this set of rules to
provide more or less complete results for queries, as appropriate for
their application."

This would address, I believe, some of the use cases that, separately,
Jim and Zhe have mentioned in various discussions.

-Alan

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Similar comment to the one on QL, for RL. Current:
>
> "OWL 2 RL enables the implementation of polynomial time reasoning
> algorithms using rule-extended database technologies operating
> directly on RDF triples; it is particularly suitable for applications
> where relatively lightweight ontologies are used with very large
> datasets, and where it is useful or necessary to operate directly on
> data in the form of RDF triples."
>
> Is it equally true that in RL there is benefit to a small tbox and
> large abox? I was under the impression that they were more on equal
> footing in RL.  Suggested rephrasing is:
>
> "OWL 2 RL enables the implementation of polynomial time reasoning
> algorithms using rule-extended database technologies operating
> directly on RDF triples; it is particularly suitable for applications
> that want to manage relatively large amounts of data represented using
> OWL, and where it is useful or necessary to operate directly on that
> data in the form of RDF triples."
>
> -Alan
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 16:22:44 UTC