From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
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? -JH 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 >complementOf >intersectionOf >disjointUnionOf >differentIndividualFrom > > >DAML+OIL Light should support: >TransitiveProperty >inverseOf >DatatypeProperty >ObjectProperty >cardinalityQ >maxCardinalityQ >minCardinalityQ >hasClassQ >cardinality >maxCardinality >minCardinality >hasClass >hasValue >toClass >onProperty >Restriction >oneOf > > >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 jhendler@darpa.mil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST