- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:43:28 -0500
- To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Ian Horrocks wrote: > On February 11, Jonathan Borden writes: ... > > > > I guess this all depends on what folks want OWL Lite to be. My take is that > > OWL Lite is lite from an editing point of view, and not necessarily much > > lighter than OWL DL from a reasoning point of view -- is that essentially > > correct? > > No it is *NOT* correct. Please see [1]. [1] is a good point, and one that I don't remember a good answer to. I have a different take on it. You seem to say that "oneOf" ought be removed from OWL-DL in order to give OWL-DL the properties that we've been told it will have -- fast (somewhat) efficient reasoning. Either "oneOf" does or doesn't belong in OWL-DL, but I guess I've always thought OWL-Lite to have a significantly different constituency than OWL-DL. > > > If so, we could always do: > > > > OWL DL as a subset of OWL Full. (easier reasoning) > > > > OWL Lite as another subset of OWL Full. (easier editing)(this is your OWL > > flite). > > > > I guess the question is: who has a need for OWL Lite as a subset of OWL DL? > > Please see [2]. > > Regards, Ian > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0239.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0088.html Right, ok, but *you* are an OWL-DL person (sorry to pigeonhole you, but let's be totally clear about this). I am looking to the OWL-Lite folks for this answer. People, if *we* can't be clear on this layering/relationship issue between our set of languages, the rest of the world is going to get terribly confused -- this could turn OWL into an Ostrich. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:06:32 UTC