ontology - In Semantic Web, are OWL EL, RL, QL all instances of DL? What is the difference? More inside -


I have been using the tablet logic for several reasons and have run the information system in the list of IRIs (in this case URL ). Two metrics that I am interested in are DL Expressivity and OWL Profiles I am getting the limit from "OWL 2," "OWL 2 DL," OWL 2 EL, "OWL 2 QL", "OWL 2 RL", I OWL Profile. When "OWL 2" says, does it mean the otology oval 2 is full? Are all other changes DL? I have found a specific sample describing various profiles (Table 10 in particular) [As a new user, I can not post more than one hyperlink; Thought that the forthcoming was more important than one]], but so far I have not been able to answer this question for myself.

For "DL Express", a lot of name means that all the expressive code (such as ALCH, ALCH (D)) are DL I get code and their technical meaning in terms of complexity, but I It should be known that at least how to tell, whether by looking at an otology dl or full expression. Any help or links link explaining these things will be appreciated.

If it helps, then I should give some context about what I am trying to do with this stuff. I am just creating a table with "tablet information" data in which the totonology ID number (from the URL list), personality for each and the OWL Profile, and also says whether it is full of charity, DL or Lite. Which is telling you as compared to an otology "OWL 2" (tablet?) If it could be otherwise one, then / p>

Profiles like AL, QL or RL are probably reporting about the ontology in which each profile is sitting outside the expression, but is otherwise included in the OWL2 specification.

I understand that, each profile is based on different description logic (DLS) that are designed for different purposes:

  • Based on the description logic , And expression in a high degree language.
  • , which is designed for scalable logic in TBox (i.e., for most estimates, multiple time logic nce jobs such as classification).
  • , which is capable of answering scalable queries in ABox (when working with many example data and a relatively simple TBox).
  • , which has a personality that is sub-section of OWL2 DL (which can be handled using description logic).

As far as I can tell, what you connected is up-to-date, but if you are not familiar with logic and the constructions covered by each language If you can identify it, it is a bit difficult to use. The page OWL summarizes the language expression of each profile in the syntax. You can probably refer to it to understand the interpretation of each OOLL2 language profile, without understanding its words, in the context of DSL , Which is difficult to understand unless you are not comfortable with the description logic, and in the case of OLO2 -RL, the description logic program).

Finally, note that the OWL 1 profile of Full, DL and Lite 'each other details are consistent with:

  • OWL1 DL Mail description logic
  • corresponds to the OWL1 Lite description argument.
  • OWL1 full corresponds to a draw log which is at least SOINS (though, I'm not sure exactly what it is!): -

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

c# - sqlDecimal to decimal clr stored procedure Unable to cast object of type 'System.Data.SqlTypes.SqlDecimal' to type 'System.IConvertible' -

Calling GetGUIThreadInfo from Outlook VBA -

Obfuscating Python code? -