W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80)

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:11:17 +0100 (CET)
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711291808560.23631@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jim Hendler wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:44, Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>> well, it's not so much motivated by computational properties, see out in 
>>> the real world there's people who just implement fast engines and don't 
>>> worry so much about the details...
>> Sorry to object, but IHMO this approach is precisely why the original
>> OWL Lite was broken. And I understood we wanted to fix this?! We should
>> at least understand the computational properties of the fragments we
>> are selecting.
> IMO, its because we worried too much about theory that lite is broken, but 
> thats neither here nor there. I never said computation wasn't a factor to be 
> taken into account, but it's also not the only factor to be taken into 
> account.

This I never said.

> We are not writing research papers here, we are trying to help 
> people build real web apps!

No doubts, we must have an eye on both. Which is why I pointed out
that EL++ is both theoretically well-understood *and* already adopted
by many people building real ontologies. :)


*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 17:11:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC