« Return to Thread: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF
Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF
by Jim Hendler
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
At 1:56 PM -0600 11/13/06, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Bijan,
>
>Thanks for your recent item on the relationship between OWL 1.1
>and RDF...
>
>http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2006/11/13/not-so-alternate-a-view-of-owl-11/
>
>I it addresses many of the concerns I have that Jim and Ora expressed
>http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/11/11/an-alternative-view-for-owl-11/
>
>Thanks for your recent item on the relationship between OWL 1.1
>and RDF...
>
>http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2006/11/13/not-so-alternate-a-view-of-owl-11/
>
>I it addresses many of the concerns I have that Jim and Ora expressed
>http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/11/11/an-alternative-view-for-owl-11/
>http://www.lassila.org/blog/archive/2006/11/more_on_rdf.html
>
>Between the 3 of those posts, I feel the urgency to finish my own
>has gone down to the point where I can collect my thoughts
>on OWL 1.1 without rushing too much. I'm still thinking about how
>to reconcile punning, in particular...
>
>Oh... and I have been doing some relevant work...
>
> Using ACL2 with Semantic Web Data
> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/Papers/owl-acl2/doc20
>
>I hope to look at the axiomatic semantics Jim mentions
>in that light.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>Between the 3 of those posts, I feel the urgency to finish my own
>has gone down to the point where I can collect my thoughts
>on OWL 1.1 without rushing too much. I'm still thinking about how
>to reconcile punning, in particular...
>
>Oh... and I have been doing some relevant work...
>
> Using ACL2 with Semantic Web Data
> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/Papers/owl-acl2/doc20
>
>I hope to look at the axiomatic semantics Jim mentions
>in that light.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Bijan - in the interest of bringing things to the mailing lists
instead of blog wars (which actually seem to have better Google karma,
but never mind) - you put the following as deliverables for a
potential WG
Deliverables
* Syntax and Semantics (S&S)
* Outreach material
o update/diff//what the wg decides
o New material (e.g., tractable fragments)
* Syntax and Semantics (S&S)
* Outreach material
o update/diff//what the wg decides
o New material (e.g., tractable fragments)
* Test Suite
this reveals one difference - I am not interested in elucidating
the many tractable fragments, that's not a WG activity in my opinion -
I'd be interested in identifying one particular tractable fragment,
naming it, and getting it into note or rec form
to show where we are at the moment - the attached (HTML table)
reflects where some of us have been playing - comments welcome
-JH
--
Prof James Hendler
hendler@...
Dept of Computer Science
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg
301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland
301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Dept of Computer Science
AV Williams Bldg
Univ of Maryland
College Park, MD 20853 USA
| Vocabulary Comparison Matrix | Proposal 1 | Proposal 2 | OWL Lite | ||||||||
| RDF Schema Features: | |||||||||||
| * Class (Thing, Nothing) | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:subClassOf | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdf:Property | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:subPropertyOf | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:domain | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:range | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * Individual | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| "Annotation" Properties: | |||||||||||
| * rdfs:label | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:comment | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:seeAlso | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * rdfs:isDefinedBy | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| ADD FROM OWL | |||||||||||
| (In)Equality: | |||||||||||
| * equivalentClass | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * equivalentProperty | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * sameAs | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * differentFrom | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| Property Characteristics: | |||||||||||
| * inverseOf | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * TransitiveProperty | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * SymmetricProperty | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * FunctionalProperty | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * InverseFunctionalProperty | yes | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * AnnotationProperty | no | yes | yes | ||||||||
| MAYBE: | |||||||||||
| * AllDifferent, distinctMembers | ? | ? | yes | Note: this is just syntatic sugar for "differentFrom" | |||||||
| * ObjectProperty | ? | yes | yes | ||||||||
| * DatatypeProperty | ? | ? | yes | ||||||||
| * disjointWith | ? | yes | no | ||||||||
| Class/Restriction/MISC | |||||||||||
| * complementOf | no | yes* | no | Note: complementOf is doable because we don't have class intersection or union | |||||||
| * oneOf | no | no | no | ||||||||
| * Restriction | no | no | yes | ||||||||
| * allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom | no | no | yes | ||||||||
| * minCardinality, maxCardinality | no | no | yes* | Note: cardinality can only be 0 or 1 for OWL LITE | |||||||
| * cardinality | no | no | yes* | ||||||||
| * unionOf | no | no | no | ||||||||
| * intersectionOf | no | no | yes | ||||||||
| * hasValue | no | no | no | ||||||||
| * DataRange | no | no | no | ||||||||
| Note: OWL DL/FULL has everything. | |||||||||||
« Return to Thread: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
