- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:28:59 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim Hendler 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. Me too, for the diagram, but I disagree with the FO part of FO fragment of RDFS. Simply [fragment of RDFS] would do. As I understand it, the intent is that this is merely the intersection of OWL Lite and RDFS. The FO bit is questionable: RDFS is first order, just Ian prefers looking at it in a different way, and insists on calling something that does not map classes into (well-founded) sets as non-first order, which, as far as I can tell, is simply incorrect. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 03:29:53 UTC