W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2007

Re: OWL DL, OWL Lite OWL Full comparison papers

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:55:33 +0000
Message-ID: <e8aa138c0701020355g3f28edcfxb78711e9286475d3@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic_web@googlegroups.com, "Semantic web list" <semantic-web@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:02 UTC