W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Profiles intro

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:34 +0100
Message-ID: <47FE42C6.9000703@hpl.hp.com>
To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Carsten Lutz wrote:

> Apologies, but this seems like a very strong claim to me. There are
> different communities in this WG who come from different backgrounds.
> As I wrote in my previous mail, I have strong reservations against DL
> Lite and OWL-R as *ontology languages*. But still I don't claim that
> they are out of scope for this WG (which is about ontology languages),
> and I understand that they are useful in a context different from the
> one that I am interested in. Clearly, there are people using OWL in an
> RDF context, and there are people using OWL in other contexts. I feel
> that if we want to do a good job in this WG, we should try to appreciate
> and cater for all meaningful uses of OWL (at least as long as they
> don't interfere with the semantic web use).

This para got through to me.

Some say: **Web** ontology language
Others say: Web **ontology** language

if we start being too purist in requiring our starred item to be strong 
then we will disagree too much - consensus has to permit Web language 
with weak ontology, and ontology language with weak Web.

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 16:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC