RE: types of OWL

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:24:16 +0200
• To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "ror" <galvinr@tcd.ie>
• Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOEOCCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> 
> Re-reading your question, I guess you were looking for more details. I
> think the basic situation is that things from DL that aren't in Lite
> were taken out on the basis of their being known to be difficult to 
> implement. My understanding is that someone should be well on their way
> to implementing OWL Lite by studying the published DL literature, whereas
> complete reasoning with DL is more researchy...
> 

That's true, so see my earlier comment as complementing this one.

Jeremy
 

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 08:27:52 UTC