- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:51:53 -0500
- To: Florian Probst <f.probst@uni-muenster.de>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Sorry for the delay. On Feb 5, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Florian Probst wrote: [snip] > What I would like to learn is why OWL-S is developed using OWL-Full > constructs rather than only using OWL-DL constructs. Hysterical raisons first and foremost. OWL-S only recently switched from DAML+OIL. I defy you to find any DAML+OIL ontology that requires only namespace/name transformations to be OWL-DL. > Can I infer from your question, that consistency checking and > classification is possible with OWL-Full? OWL-Full is semi-decidable, and, I'm pretty sure, is fairly difficult to reason with in lots of cases. But, sure, you can check consistency (when, er...you can). Fully classifying the primitive concepts in an OWL-Full ontology will depend on that ontology. For some, all the relevant subsumption tests will be decidable (and even achievable). The easiest way to understand what you can do with OWL-Full is to think of it as first order logic, only maybe not as fun :) Actually, if you look at the HiLog papers, you might get some sense as well. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 16:52:19 UTC