- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:05:02 -0500
- To: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Jan 27, 2004, at 6:53 AM, Daniel Elenius wrote: > I'm sure this has been asked and answered many times, but nonetheless > I couldn't fine the answer in the archives... > Which 'species' of OWL does OWL-S use? Lite, DL or Full? And what are > the main obstacles of using a simpler species of OWL? Currently, several of the OWL-S ontologies are in OWL Full. One of my tasks for the 1.1 release (expected Feb 15th) is to DLize them as much as possible. Part of the reason for them being full is that they were originally DAML+OIL and 1) it was common to do things in DAML+OIL that completely don't respect the syntactic restrictions of OWL DL (e.g., some people encouraged using rdf:Property for properties that were restricted and letting the type of the restriction, a class or a datatype, determine the type of the property; also owl:imports is different than daml:imports, e.g., people often imported the daml+oil namespace uri) and 2) there are some modeling issues that seem, at least to some members of the group, to be better dealt with by OWL Full constructs (e.g., using rdf:Lists to model sequences, or relating a parameter instance to a class by a parameterType property). I hope to have something that will make owl-s workable for most tool. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 08:04:59 UTC