- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:31:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: Frank Clar <Frank_Clar@web.de>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Warning: My answers are not definitive - I am not one of W3C's big experts on logic and OWL, and I know very little about DAML+OIL. I hope someone follows up with more detailed responses to the things I couldn't help with. On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Frank Clar wrote: >Here are my questions: > >Are they completely decidable? >Is it right that only OWL full and RDF/s are not decidable, because they >do not seperate between concepts and instances? This is what the OWL specifications say, as I understand them. (I think it is in the owl guide). >Do DAML+OIL and OWL DL support Description logics and for this reason as >well first order predicate logic? I don't know. >And do they support first respectively second order predicate logic? >Only DAML+OIL and OWL lite and DL support first order predicate logic, >because they are based on Description logics? I don't understand the question. I suspect I don't know the annswer though. >What different kinds of syntax do the above named languages support and >is it possible to map all of them to UML? >RDF/XML, abstract syntax, n3, n-triples...I have just found several >articles, which describe methods to map RDF/S to UML. RDF supports any syntax capable of describing the model. Perhaps a more interesting question is what kinds of syntax support RDF? There are a number. I have not done a lot of work reading up on UML, but it seems that there are ways of mapping a lot of things to UML. I am not sure if they can be completely mapped both ways. >Is it possible to express a kind of class variable, which has one single >value for a concept? Is there a way to define one indirectly? > >Do DAML+OIL and OWL support reification and do they offer the possiblity >to add additional information to the statements? I guess that >reification has no meaning in OWL and DAML+OIL. OWL, because it is expressed in RDF (and for interoperability in the RDF/XML syntax) doesn't need to support reification itself, since it is already part of RDF. >Could you declare a default value for a literal, if no value was >assigned to this property? I don't think so. Hope this was some help. Note that I am not W3C's expert on many of these questions - I am just someone who tries to answer things. I trust that people who are more familiar with the logic stuff will answer the more detailed questions. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Saturday, 11 December 2004 13:31:40 UTC