- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:36:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu> Subject: Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 19:54:09 -0800 [...] > > 6 - A new top level section, to become section 5.0 is added. In this > > section we say that OWL Full uses the same vocabulary as OWL DL, but > > relaxes two features of OWL DL. It then lists the following two > > things<ul>: > > > > <li><b><i>InverseFunctionalProperty (datatypes):</i></b> OWL Full > > allows inverseFunctional Property to be applied to datatype > > properties. (and a short description that this is desirable for > > allowing database-key like functionality ) >/li> > > > > <li><b>Classes as Instances:</b></i> A short description of what this > > is and when it could be desirable. The words on this in the > > requirements document (this was a requirement) coupled with a simple > > example (either from wine or the one on airplane flights we heard at > > first f2f) > > </ul> > > ok - do pat and peter and ian think that captures all the differences? It does not. One of my recent messages gives a set of requirements for OWL/DL ontologies in graph form, which is stated quite differently and has more differences than mentioned above. peter PS: My requirements for OWL/DL graphs are incomplete, as I noticed this morning.
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 07:36:33 UTC