[Fwd: RE: LANG: compliance levels]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: LANG: compliance levels
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:38:05 +0300
From: "Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com>
To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>,"Mike Dean" <mdean@daml.org>,"Enrico Motta" <E.Motta@open.ac.uk>,"Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>,<herman.ter.horst@philips.com>,"Peter Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>,"Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>,"Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>,"Raphel Volz" <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>,"Deborah McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
CC: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Two comments:

1) Please provide more detail as to exactly what you intend by stating
'functionality of properties'

2) As recent email exchanges on the WebOnt forum indicate, the
distinction between primitive and defined classes can be tenuous, at
least with full DAML+OIL expressiveness. Will the same be true of
compliance level 1 of OWL?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank van Harmelen [mailto:Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl]
>Sent: Monday, 22 April, 2002 18:28
>To: Mike Dean; Enrico Motta; Ziv Hellman; Ian Horrocks; 
>herman.ter.horst@philips.com; Peter Patel-Schneider; 
>Christopher Welty; Jim Hendler; Raphel Volz; Deborah McGuinness
>Subject: Re: LANG: compliance levels
>(Sorry to some of you for resending this, but some people fell 
>of the original addresslist of this msg). Please reply to this 
>copy to make sure your reply reaches all. 
>A small group met at KR'02 (ter Horst, Patel-Schneider, 
>Horrocks, Welty, McGuinness, van Harmelen), discussing the 
>contents of compliance level 1 for OWL. We solicit reactions 
>from those volunteered for this task. Please do this by 
>immediate response, so that we can report back to the WG next 
>We propose to use for level 1 RDF Schema on Steroids,
>(using the terminology from Frank's Thursday 18 April message)
>with additionally:
>- properties can be declared functional
>- datatypes (details depending on resolution by RDF Core).
>The main motivation for this choice is aimed at tool developers: 
>this level gives tool developers a useful language to aim at 
>that is significantly smaller than DAML+OIL, while imposing as 
>few restrictions as possible on toolbuilders that want to 
>extend beyond this compliance level. Putting in any additional 
>features (such as universal local range restrictions) into 
>level 1 will make it much harder to go beyond this basic level 
>(for example the interaction with existential restrictions). 
>Written out in full, this amounts to:
>RDF Schema stuff
>    primitiveclass   
>    subClassOf
>    subpropertyof    
>    domain
>    range
>    Property
>    named & unnamed Individual
>    sameClassAs
>    samePropertyAs
>    sameIndividualAs
>    differentIndividualAs
>Property characteristics
>    inversOf
>    transitive
>    symmetric 
>Plus: functionality of properties (= at most one value for a property)
>      (with the usual side condition that this cannot be applied to 
>       transitive properties, same side condition as in DAML+OIL)
>plus: datatypes (unclear at this moment what this means precisely,
>      pending on RDF Core decisions.
>   ----

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:02:59 UTC