Re: DAML+OIL Light

From: Stefan Decker (
Date: 04/19/01

I agree - I think that such a document is important, since it enables
people to make a smooth transition.
I promised to start such a document.

All the best,


At 02:40 AM 4/18/2001 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote:
>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
>>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