W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: WOWG: Report from WWW 2003 - OWL presentation/issues

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:04:44 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f0fbafb361654c7@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 2:29 PM -0500 5/28/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 13:59, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>  The reality of our design is more like:
>>      [OWL Full]
>>      /        \
>>  [RDFS]      [OWL DL]
>>      \       [OWL Lite]
>>       \       /
>>  [FO fragment of RDFS]
>That's a nifty diagram. I like that.

hmm, I could live with this - but where do we find the definition of 
"FO Fragment of RDFS" -- if we can define that clearly things would 
work well -- maybe something like

OWL  Full -----  OWL DL
  |                 |
  |               OWL LITE
  |                 |
RDFS  -------- FO Fragment of RDFS

in fact, if we added the OWL Lite vocabulary in the first column this 
would be what we once called the "two dimensional" view of OWL and 
its restrictions, which Guus had proposed and we thought might be too 
complex to describe.  Maybe adding it back in (i.e. make Lite a 
vocabulary restriction on either Full or DL) would work -- IMHO we 
need to do something to clarify some of this if we're going to make 
it to/through PR

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
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, 29 May 2003 00:04:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:45 UTC