Re: OWL-cool

At 12:07 -0700 4/6/03, Bob MacGregor wrote:
Side-bar conversations with Jim Hendler revealed that
he thinks OWL-lite is pretty cool, and figures that
if you need things like attaching data to classes and
properties, you just switch to OWL-full, and then you're
OK (Jim, if I paraphrased this improperly, I apologize).
Unfortunately, switching to OWL-full doesn't make things OK.

The good news is that it wouldn't take a whole lot to
convert OWL-lite into a practical language.



Bob-
  Don't misquote me.  In fact, what I said was that of you used the 
OWL Lite vocabulary against the OWL Full model (that is, use OWL Full 
but limit yourself to OWL Lite) it would provide what you wanted.  In 
fact, your OWL-cool is virtually the same as this, except you add the 
domain thing (which I don't personally like, but you're welcome to 
extend the language anyway you like, one of the nice features of OWL) 
and you want something different in the functionalPrperty world (for 
what it is worth, we spent weeks looking for a better name, and I 
notice you didn't provide one - you left that for the reader).  You 
are right that this would not be OWL DL upwardly compatible, but it 
woudl be full OWL Full upwardly compatible, meaning there will be 
tools to handle it (Euler for example).  What you lose is 
decidability, but your Loom stuff and my Parka work never insisted on 
that anyway...
  -JH

-- 
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 Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:37:29 UTC