Re: DAML+OIL Light

From: Jim Hendler (
Date: 04/18/01

Seems to me that all this is requesting is something that produces a 
document that says "A good subset of DAML+OIL for many applications 
is..." and explaining why.  Doesn't seem to me it needs a "name" and 
status, am I missing something?

At 11:11 AM -0700 4/17/01, Stefan Decker wrote:
>Dear all,
>supporting the current DAML+OIL specification requires
>some effort and sophistication: the average programmer
>is usually not acquainted with algorithms to classify
>description logic expressions.
>And there are many application that would not require the
>additional expressivity that description
>logics provide  - it might often be a hurdle for
>people who want to use and to support DAML+OIL.
>Therefore I suggest to introduce a light version of
>DAML+OIL, focusing on easy implementability.
>Once people have spent the effort to support DAML+OIL light, it
>would be much easier to convince them to support full DAML+OIL.
>Requirements for DAML+OIL light are: implementable by an average programmer
>and as much advantages of DAML+OIL should be preserved as possible.
>Suggestions are:
>DAML+OIL Light should not support:
>UnambiguousProperty : Equality reasoning would be necessary
>UniqueProperty: see above
>DAML+OIL Light should support:
>All the best,
>	Stefan

Prof. James Hendler		Program Manager
DARPA/ISO			703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST