W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:05:39 -0500
Message-Id: <77D1BD5B-D024-4324-AAB5-E2E0748C21E8@monkeyfist.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> I personally have doubts about the wisdom of making a significant
>> increment to OWL at this point in time because of potential impact on
>> the adoption of RDF and OWL, but am happy to defer to Kendall, Bijan
>> and co. on the point that there is real demand for certain features.
>
> I think he said that much better than I did!   I think  
> simplification is needed before pushing new functionality - I've  
> said that many times, but then I spent two years saying it to the  
> WG and failed there as well :-)   Seriously, I have no object to  
> new design work going on, but I think I'd be happier if  Googling "- 
> xxxxxxx filetype:owl" returned more hits before we began extending...

I consistently fail to understand the import of that kind of claim,  
as it seems to suggest that the public Semantic Web is the most  
important thing.

Doesn't that ignore the history of the Web itself, which, as we all  
know, got a significant boost -- several such boosts, actually --  
from enterprise intranet adoption. But now for the Semantic Web the  
equivalent of "intranet adoption" seems not only not to matter but  
seems to be a problem.

I don't get it.

Lots more people are using OWL than are using it "on the public Web".  
Isn't that a *good* thing? I think it is. :>

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 00:45:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT