ISSUE-76: ACCEPTED: DLP

DLP

ACCEPTED: DLP

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Bijan Parsia

Opened on:

2007-11-28

Description:

(On behalf of Carsten Lutz.)

I would like to raise the question whether we really want DLP in the
document. In my understanding, the history of DLP is as follows:

- the origin was an academic exercise: to understand what one gets
when taking the common part of logic programming and OWL

- the answer was (in my very personal opinion; never mind): nothing
very useful

- ontologies written in DLP have never shown up (I am happy to
stand corrected)

- it was superceeded by Horn-SHIQ of which it is fragment (right?),
and which is also in the document (where it is not really visible
that DLP is a fragment of Horn-SHIQ).

I can see that the connection between logic programming and OWL is
important, for a number of reasons. Still, I feel that DLP is an odd
fragment and that we would do better to drop it. When discussing
Horn-SHIQ, we could still mention that the intersection of logic
programming and OWL is contained in it.

If anybody wants to make a case for DLP, go ahead. I only want to
avoid that we include fragments that nobody really supports.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Proposed: Close ISSUE-76, ISSUE-77, and ISSUE-80 (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-04-12)
2. Re: ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP (from mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de on 2007-12-05)
3. Re: ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-12-02)
4. Re: ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP (from bcg@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-28)
5. ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-28)

Related notes:

Display change log