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

Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:10:24 -0500
Message-Id: <p062309a4c180186efdca@[10.0.0.233]>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org

At 3:05 PM -0500 11/14/06, Kendall Clark wrote:
>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

point taken, but one would expect the uptake on the public side to be 
continuing while the other goes on - It is unclear to me why intranet 
adoption would favor more expressivity, woudl assume it to be about 
the same - a lot of the DOD projects I've been involved with are 
using relatively low expressivity w/large ABOX as well
  again, I think the clarity of messaging and the development of a 
simpler subset are both necessary to better OWL adoption - i don't 
claim sufficiency, but if I have to prioritize (and I do, at least 
w/respect to my time and that of my employees) then I would prefer to 
see us fill the simplicity gap before chasing the expressivity end - 
I think OWL DL/Full is expressive enough to hold most people for a 
while...
  -JH
-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science			http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 01:10:10 GMT

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