W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Moving owl:Nothing from DL to Lite

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:20:43 -0700
Message-ID: <3EAD62EB.2050903@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I agree with Ian's statement below - it is a minor change  to put 
owl:Nothing in lite in the overview document (and his suggestion below 
is right).

As history, I remember the discussion to leave nothing out of lite to 
help limit the ways that naive people can explicitly hang or simply 
confuse themselves.  (they of course will find some other ways though). 
 A second less important reason was to limit the number of terms in lite.
it was group consensus at the time to leave owl:Nothing out of Lite.

Is the status of this topic captured as:
    if it is a small change that does not impact schedules and editors 
can do it, we will add owl:Nothing to Lite?    
(If so, i can make the change simply and quickly to overview).


Ian Horrocks wrote:

>The changes required to the various documents in order to implement
>this change seem to be very minor. As far as I can tell they would be
>limited to:
>In Section 3.1 "OWL Lite RDF Schema Features", under "Classes", append
>the sentence "There is also a built-in most specific class named
>Nothing that is the class that has no instances and a subclass of all
>OWL classes.".
>In Section 4 "Incremental Language Description of OWL DL and OWL
>FULL", under "complex classes", delete the sentence "OWL also includes
>a special "bottom" class with the name Nothing that is the class that
>has no instances.".
>No change.
>In Section 3.1 "Class descriptions", delete "NOTE: owl:Nothing is not
>included in OWL Lite.".
>In Section 8.3 "OWL Lite", delete "owl:Nothing" from list of things
>forbidden in Lite.
>In "Index of Vocabulary (Informative)", in the entry for
>"owl:Nothing", add pointer to Section 2.1 in column labelled "Abstract
>OWL Lite Syntax".
>Editors of individual documents will no doubt want to double check to
>see that I didn't miss anything.
>Regards, Ian
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 13:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:44 UTC