Re: WOWG: first language proposal

Guus,

I'm not really sure what you mean by "OWL (Lite) looks very much like a
refined version of RDF Schema." Since we don't have an XML syntax for it
yet, it's really hard to know what it will look like. I guess you mean
that it has many of the same constructs. As far as I can tell, the only
things it has in common with RDFS Schema are the elements
"subPropertyOf." "domain," and "range." Note that OWL Lite does not have
"subClassOf," instead it has "supers." Also, it doesn't have
"rdfs:Property," it has "slot." It seems to me the only things the
current draft of OWL-Lite has in common with RDF Schema are the same
things it has in common with any other object-oriented or frame-based
language. If we take the approach of saying that OWL is an alternative
method (to RDF Schema) for specifying RDF ontologies, then I don't think
users will be very confused, especially if we explain what OWL can do
things that RDF Schema can't.

Jeff

Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 
> Jeff Heflin wrote:
> > Finally, an important issue will be finding a way to map your abstract
> > syntax into XML/RDF and still preserve its simplicity. I believe that in
> > order to get a good, intuitive syntax, we'll have to seriously consider
> > dropping the idea of using triples to represent the language, i.e., do
> > not layer on top of RDF Schema (but this is a point I've already raised
> > in another thread).
> 
> OWL (Lite) looks very much like a refined version of RDF Schema. Leaving
> out charter and technical issues for the moment, I am not sure how we
> can explain to future OWL users it is not layered on top of RDF Schema.
> 
> Guus
> 
> --
> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
> NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793
> Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
> WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 11:00:18 UTC