Re: Layering on RDFS

On Fri, 2002-10-16 at 17:02, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 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.

If a minimal requirement for Large OWL is not defined, we can have
an implementation of Large OWL that is solely given with the Classes
as instances feature.  I am cuorious if this implementation is usable
or not for those who want to have the Classes as instances feature in
the OWL Lite.

Another point is if a minimal requirement for Large OWL is not defined,
the Large OWL is not a language but a class of ontology languages.
This means we might have a complecated "network" of languages within
the Large OWL(s).  However, I still strongly support to have the inclusion
ordering: OWL Lite < OWL/FOL < Large OWL, because it makes easier
for ontology users to decide which OWL should be used for individual

-Masahiro Hori

Masahiro Hori, Ph.D.
Group Leader, Programming Models & Tools,
IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-46-215-4667 / Fax: +81-46-274-4282

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:49:55 UTC