Can there be a decidable subset of OWL FULl?

Hi,
  When trying to use OWL in real applications, I¡¯m in trouble: 
1) If I use OWL DL, most of constructs in RDF(S) can¡¯t be used, such as
statement about statement, class as instance. The corresponding RDF
become only a web-ized DL Abox language and arguably can be still called
RDF. We know that one design goals of RDF is "anyone can make statements
about any resource". But when using OWL DL, RDF loses its interesting
characters.
2)If I use OWL FULL, RDF(S) is okay, but reasoning in OWL full is
undecidable and there are no inference engine for OWL FULL.

I hope there can be a decidable subset of OWL FULL that is fully
compatible with  
RDF(S)(in syntax and semantics) and is more expressive than RDF Schema.
Since reasoning in RDF(S) is decidable, is there a conclusion that
RDF(S) is the most expressive and decidable language under the RDF
semantics?

One application of the decidable subset of OWL Full is RDF Schema
mapping, for example, mapping a class in RDF Schema_A to an instance in
RDF Schema_B. 

Thanks for any comments.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  
Shengping Liu(ÁõÉýƽ)
Department of Information Science, Peking University, China.
 
Phone: 86-10-62757175
Mail:  lsp@is.pku.edu.cn

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 11:36:52 UTC