Re: OWL Lite vs OWL DL-Lite

On February 12, Jonathan Borden writes:
> 
> 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.

This isn't my view; as far as I am concerned OWL Lite is just a cut
down version of OWL DL with similar characteristics but easier to
implement.


> 
> >
> > > 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.

This is a very strange thing to say. I imagine that I will work mostly
with Lite as it is enough for many applications and easier to
implement.


> 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.

We *were* clear about it up until recently!

Ian


> 
> Jonathan
>

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 08:56:30 UTC