- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:04:44 -0400
- 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 -JH -- 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) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 00:04:58 UTC