Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis

At 11:30 -0500 1/2/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Jim Hendler <>
>Subject: Re: Comments on Feature Synopsis
>Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:58:47 -0500
>>  wait, this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of differences,
>>  it's supposed to be the primary features that can be used in the
>>  different sublanguages - as far as I can tell, the primary features
>>  that Full offers over DL are the ability to do classes as instances
>>  and the ability to have inverseFunctionalProperty for datatype.   I
>>  also suggested in other mail that we have a complete categorization
>>  of the differences between these sublangauges in the semantics
>>  document -- so I'd rephrase Deb's question as "are there other
>>  features of Full that should be highlighted in the Features document"
>>    -JH
>Well, the differences between OWL/DL and OWL/Full boil down to roughly:
>1/ pairwise separation between classes, datatypes, datatype properties,
>    object properties, individuals, and built-in vocabulary;
>2/ no cardinalities for transitive properties or their supers;
>3/ no extra triples;
>    and
>4/ descriptions can't have loops in them or share structure (except via
>    named resources).
>Note that neither ``classes as instances'' nor ``inverseFunctionalProperty
>on datatypes'' is mentioned here.  Both of these are part of point 1.
>If one wanted to provide a quick gloss, one could say something like:
>- In OWL/DL a resource cannot be more than one of a class, a datatype, an
>   object property, a datatype property, or an individual.  OWL/DL requires
>   that inverse functional properties, symmetric properties, and transitive
>   properties be object properties, so they cannot be datatype properties.
>- In OWL/DL an object property that participates in a cardinality
>   restriction cannot be specified as a transitive property nor can it have
>   a transitively-specified property as a descendant.
>- In OWL/DL all descriptions must be well-formed, with no missing or extra
>   components, and must form tree-like structures.

Peter - can you capture that in some one place in the semantics 
document?  That would be terribly useful.  For features, those are 
below the level of the document (which doesn't discuss triples per se 
in any real way), but by having a pointer to that summarization which 
could be near the technical discussion of theoretical reasons for the 
languages (i.e. based on Ian's email), the entire set of documents 
would be strengthened. Good job!

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 11:47:01 UTC