***Re: OVERVIEW: WG preference - action from telecon

I think Ian's statement is in contradiction with Jims message to me that says
"The discussion
of this feature can look liek the discussion of the other features
that have restrictions in lite - i.e. the paragraph just says
smething like "can only be used with named classes" (oe however that
is made clear in the Overview)."

I understood the decision to add intersection of named classes only and I stated
in the Overview
that one had to name classes for restrictions.
I thought one reason we did named classes was so that systems like protege could
handle this feature.

We need clarification on this immediately.
I think it should stay named classes only so that systems like protege and
ontolingua that do not have support for unnamed restrictions without gensymed
terms can support owl lite more easily.
if it was really is intersection of named classes and unnamed restrictions the
overview can be updated quickly but Frank and I need email asap with the group
answer.

thanks,
deborah

Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On February 3, Deborah McGuinness writes:
> >
> > thx for the message.
> > I  did not receive info about a publish date of today and unfortunately was
> > out of the office until today.  I received the email about adding
> > intersection to the overview document.
> > I will take write lock do 3 things - welty's comments, horan's comments, and
> >
> > to be very clear - intersection of named classes ONLY - to owl lite.
>
> This isn't correct. What is supported in owl lite is intersections of
> named classes AND RESTRICTIONS.
>
> Ian

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
0941

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 12:21:16 UTC