W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

WG: Revised Version of OWL Lite Proposal

From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 13:08:32 +0200
To: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DMECLAFLIOFJEFFIAJPCOEMJDAAA.volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

This is indeed so.
The major difference is not the findings but
my approach is a little more restricted.
Ian/Benjamin use an extended LP dialect, that
offers equivalence, nonequivalence and of course

Since there is a broad line of research on LP with
dozens of 'dialects', i.e. F-Logic, which offers existential

I personally find it very difficult to draw
a line between 'exotic' and 'standard' systems. Other variants
allow disjunction in the head, which would allow for
the implementation of disjunctive defined classes.

For example, Ian and Ben's logic can offer maximum cardinality, since
they can create rules that simulate counting via inequivalence.

We could do that as well by interpreting the differentIndividualAs
predicate as such, however I am not sure, whether this would be
correct as the procedure shown in Ian/Bens paper relies on not
having the UNA. Am I wrong ?



-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Frank van Harmelen [mailto:Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl]
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2002 09:03
An: Ian Horrocks; Raphael Volz
Cc: Rudi Studer
Betreff: Re: Revised Version of OWL Lite Proposal


Given the current state of your draft, I find it rather hard to identify the
LP-definable subset (e.g. your conclusions about functional are that it
cannot be done, or maybe yes but with a form or rules that is typically not
allowed in LP, etc).

Am I right in thinking that your conclusions more or less coincide with


Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Raphael,
> Thanks for the very interesting document.  As you may be aware,
> Benjamin Grosof and I have also been working on a rather similar
> analysis of what subset of OWL/DAML+OIL can be captured in rule
> languages and have presented some preliminary findings to the DAML
> joint committee. Our latest (very sketchy draft) is attached. Do I
> have your permission to forward your document to Benjamin?
> Ian
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 07:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:36 UTC