- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 30 Apr 2002 21:31:26 -0500
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 19:34, Frank van Harmelen wrote: [...] > This lead to the proposal of "RDF Schema on steroids" as a compliance > level 1 for OWL (see [1] for what this includes). [...] > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0329.html That looks like the vocabulary that I use most of the time. Hmm... I'll miss local range restrictions; I use them occasionally. But I can live without them, or I can live with them being in "level 2" or whatever. from [1], for reference... >Written out in full, this amounts to: > >RDF Schema stuff > primitiveclass > subClassOf > subpropertyof > domain > range > Property > named & unnamed Individual > >(In)equality > 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. > > >Frank, >Deborah. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 22:31:06 UTC