- From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:55:33 +0000
- To: semantic_web@googlegroups.com, "Semantic web list" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <e8aa138c0701020355g3f28edcfxb78711e9286475d3@mail.gmail.com>
I just noticed this email and have just read the linked paper. In discussing the suitability of reasoners for WSML (a super-set of OWL) it goes into considerable detail of the relationship between the different logics and their support in different language sets. http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/D1.6ReasonerTechnologyScan.pdf Adam On 27/12/06, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote: > > [from semantic_web@googlegroups.com, cc'd to semantic-web@w3.org] > > > On 12/24/06, hafiz <hhammad@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, can any body recommend me some papers about comparison of OWL > lite, > > > DL and Full showing what can be done with each of them and what can > not > > > be done, or why compatational gaurantee can not be given with OWL > Full, > > > Thanks, Hafiz > > On 25/12/06, Josef PetrĂ¡k <jspetrak@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I do not know if this - http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ - suites all > > your needs but a short comparism of supported features in each version > > is included in this document. > > - plus there are also the specifications themselves, and also the RDF > layers - > http://www.w3.org/RDF/ > > Offhand the only relevant paper I can think of, which covers the > background to OWL from a DL-oriented point of view, is: > > From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf > > Cheers, > Danny. > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com >
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:55:46 UTC