- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:02:31 +0200
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
This is what I sent as my f2f report to HP, I think I treated RDFS relatively clearly .... > > Semantic Layering > ================= > With the resolution of this issue the likely final outcome will be three levels in OWL, currently named: OWL Lite Fast OWL Large OWL (van Harmelen has an action to rename all three levels). To understand these we first need to divide RDFS into two parts: beginners RDFS - which uses RDFS to describe a vocabulary advanced RDFS - which uses RDFS to describe or extend its own vocabulary. OWL Lite extends beginners RDFS Fast OWL extends OWL Lite (but does not allow advanced RDFS) Large OWL extends both Fast OWL and advanced RDFS OWL Lite and Fast OWL are decidable Large OWL is semidecidable In practice that means that we expect the full functionality of Fast OWL to be implemented, whereas some aspects of Large OWL will not be, and we will not define a minimal requirement for Large OWL implementations over and above Fast OWL. A typical Large OWL implementation will have a complete RDFS implementation and a complete Fast OWL implementation in a single module. There will be incompleteness in the cracks between RDFS and Fast OWL. This is a good outcome for the Jena team in that we aspire to having both a complete RDFS and a complete Fast OWL implementations, and being able to put them together in a single framework (Large OWL) is highly desirable. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 04:02:37 UTC