- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:33:00 +0200
- To: david.h.jones@boeing.com, public-webont-comments@w3.org
- cc: Mike Uschold <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
David, Thanks for your input. They provide two very valuable datapoints for the language design One: you write: > We have implemented components that support semantic information > integration. By-and-large the representation features of OWL Lite support > what we are doing, and we would expect to transition our tools to OWL Lite > when it becomes a W3C recommendation. which is very good news. Two: You also ask for owl:hasValue to move from Full OWL to OWL Lite, and give a good motivation for it (your need for it in data-integration projects). The problem is that this adds rather substantially to the expressiveness (and therefore the computational complexity) of OWL Lite. For the same reason, enumberated classes are not in OWL Lite (actually, you could encode hasValue once you have oneOf, using allValuesFrom with a singleton class). I can see that as a user, you would want hasValue in OWL Lite, but as a tool builder, it would make your life significantly harder. Would that change your mind? Frank. ---- Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh Department of AI, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam de Boelelaan 1081a, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel (+31)-20-444 7731/7700 fax (+31)-84-221 4294
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 09:33:08 UTC