Re: [OWL-S]Avoiding Lists

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