- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:13:11 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
OK - I'll rephrase the proposal. (I was just trying to do the minimal change on the current resolution closing the issue). How about: PROPOSE - to reopen issue 5.2 - to retract the endorsement of existing OWL lite language subset. - to remove modality = complete from the OWL Lite Class Axioms in the Abstract Syntax - to endorse the modified OWL Lite language subset - to close issue 5.2 This is more in keeping with seeing AS&S as the definitive doc. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] > Sent: 24 January 2003 01:07 > To: jjc@hpl.hp.com > Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed > clarification > > > 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 Friday, 24 January 2003 03:13:25 UTC