Re: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:06:58 -0500 (EST)
• To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030123.190658.34975914.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:27:50 +0100

[...]

>   - to endorse the existing OWL Lite language subset in the OWL Overview of  
> 20 Jan 2003
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/att-0327/01-OWLOverview

[...]

Hmm.

To endorse the language described in this document requires:

For OWL Lite:
- prohibit owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty
- not use datatypes (yet)
- not use owl:AllDifferent
- allow owl:inverseOf, owl:TransitiveProperty, owl:SymmetricProperty,
  and owl:InverseFunctionalProperty on any property
- apply restrictions to classes (somehow)

For OWL DL:
- prohibit owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty
- require that all properties belong to either owl:DatatypeProperty and
  owl:ObjectProperty 
- not use datatypes (yet)
- not use owl:AllDifferent
- not allow owl:oneOf for data values
- allow owl:inverseOf, owl:TransitiveProperty, owl:SymmetricProperty,
  and owl:InverseFunctionalProperty on any property
- apply restrictions to classes (somehow)

I do not think that these are good ideas.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 19:07:12 UTC