- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:23:10 +0000
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Jeremy's proposal is that OWL Lite be both a syntactic and *semantic* > "subset" (I use the expression loosely in this case) of OWL DL. Nothing loose there ... my proposal views a language as a pair: < A set of documents, an entailment relationship over the set > Then OWL DL is a sublanguage of OWL full in that the set of OWL DL documents is a subset of the set of OWL Full documents the OWL DL entailment relationship is a subset of the OWL Full entailment relationship (specifically the restriction of OWL Full entailment to the set of OWL DL documents). My OWL Lite is a sublanguage of OWL Full the set of OWL Lite documents is a subset of the set of OWL Full documents the OWL Lite entailment relationship is also a subset of the OWL DL entailment relationship. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 11:23:27 UTC