Re: Using OWL to define itself?

At 9:30 -0500 3/10/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
>Subject: Using OWL to define itself?
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:59:46 -0500
>
>>
>>  Hi Folks,
>>
>>  In the OWL Reference, Appendix B is a definition of OWL using RDF
>>  Schemas (actually, it also uses OWL features, so it is not strictly
>>  using RDF Schemas).  I believe that this document should be considered a
>>  definition of OWL Full, correct?
>
>No, this ontology cannot be considered to be a definition of any species of
>OWL.  It is at best a document that one might look at to get some idea of
>what can be said in the OWL syntax.
>
>>  Is there a similar document for OWL DL, and for OWL Lite?  That would be
>>  very useful, especially for identifying the differences between Full,
>>  DL, and Lite.  /Roger
>
>Many of the differences between OWL Full and OWL DL would not show up in
>this sort of document.  It might be helpful to illustrate some of the
>differences between OWL DL and OWL Lite in this way, but I'm not sure how
>much could be so captured.
>
>peter


This document is also the namespace document for OWL -- that is, it 
defines the legal vocabulary of OWL and the relationships between the 
concepts.  Note that all three OWL sublangauges use (subsets of) the 
same vocabulary, and thus we can use the same namespace for all of 
them
  -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 Tuesday, 11 March 2003 02:15:41 UTC