[Semantic Web]Advantage and Disadvantage of the Three Sublanguages of OWL

读书笔记,  电脑与网络 Lee 发表于 2006/2/14 18:58:02 　 The advantage of OWL Full is that it is fully upward-compatible with RDF, both syntactically and semantically: any legal RDF document is also a legal OWL Full document, and any valid RDF/RDF Schema conclusion is also a valid OWL Full conclusion. The disadvantage of OWL Full is that the language has become so powerful as to be undecidable, dashing any hope of complete (or efficient) reasoning support. In order to regain computational efficiency, OWL DL (short for Description Logic) is a sublanguage of OWL Full that restricts how the constructors from OWL and RDF may be used: essentially application of OWL’s constructor’s to each other is disallowed, thus ensuring that the language corresponds to a well studied description logic. The advantage of this is that it permits efficient reasoning support. The disadvantage is that we lose full compatibility with RDF: an RDF document will in general have to be extended in some ways and restricted in others before it is a legal OWL DL document. Every legal OWL DL document is a legal RDF document. An even further restriction limits OWL DL to a subset of the language constructors. For example, OWL Lite excludes enumerated classes, disjointness statements, and arbitrary cardinality. The advantage of this is a language that is both easier to grasp (for users) and easier to implement (for tool builders). The disadvantage is of course a restricted expressivity.

阅读全文(1664) | 回复(0) | 编辑 | 精华