- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:27:52 -0400
- To: "Bob MacGregor" <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p0511170eb99b033f1eaa@[10.0.1.2]>
At 2:42 PM -0700 9/3/02, Bob MacGregor wrote: >Recommendations: > >(1) Toss out cardinalities altogether in OWL-Lite. FunctionalProperty already >covers the MAX1 case. Add a 'RequiredProperty' property to cover MIN1. >Invent a third property to cover MAX0. > >(2) State upfront whether or not OWL-Lite is intended to be >upward compatible with RDF(S). > >(3) Toss out TransitiveProperty and SymmetricProperty. They add little >if any value, and make things harder to implement. > >(4) Forget about OWL-Heavy (for now; maybe forever). Bob, I'll let the editors respond to the specific comments, this latter is definitely an issue the group will consider - it's already in our issue list (i.e. whether to have levels or just "heavy" or just lite) > >Question: > >What happened to 'first' and 'rest'? The 'bag' stuff in RDF is hideous. >If 'first' and 'rest' clash with some other properties from a computability >standpoint, consider eliminating those other properties. the RDF Core WG has announced that they intend to provide a collection parsetype similar to the one used in DAML+OIL (i.e. first and rest) -- we currently intend to use their solution to closed sets, at the time we wrote these documents we didn't have details of their solution. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:27:59 UTC