- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:26:48 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On December 11, Jim Hendler writes:
[snip]
> Question - I may be misunderstanding some of the OWL semantics, but
> if I say that something is restricted to be an owl:oneOf (which is in
> Lite), and then only give the list a single element - isn't that the
> same as doing a hasValue? If we can already do that in Lite, why
> adding hasValue be worse?
If you care to look in the feature synopsis you will find:
2.2 OWL Synopsis
The expanded summary listing of OWL adds the following:
2.2.1 OWL Class Axioms Synopsis
* oneOf (enumerated classes)
I.e., oneOf is *not* in OWL Lite.
Ian
[snip]
>
> --
> Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:26:59 UTC