- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:04:56 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > and are > particularly concerned about their use in combination with DL semantics... > [and in a different message] >SKOS is already OWL Full, I believe, so I guess deprecating deprecation > would not really affect users in this case. The member submission documents are written in terms of OWL DL. However, the charter of this group is about OWL (both DL and Full). If what OWL Full people do doesn't matter to this group, then we should be applying for a change in charter - to work on DL only. Those people who would want to be part of such group (not me for instance), would then need to work out what sort of relationship they would want with other people in the OWL world. But participating in this group is about looking at the bigger picture, not just an OWL DL perspective. So - in terms of the two comments - the greater the difference we make between OWL DL and OWL Full the harder we make it for users of either set of technologies to revise their decisions and migrate. So for users who use deprectaion and currently are using OWL Full, as many as people in this group seem to know, these users are making a serious mistake, and in a couple of years they will realise the error of their ways and decide to migrate to an OWL DL solution. The more decisions we make that create divergence between OWL DL and OWL Full, and the more we ignore what people in the OWL Full world are doing when we think about the OWL DL design, the more difficult such migrations will be, and the more this group will have failed to meet its charter objective of: produc[ing] a W3C Recommendation that refines and extends OWL Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 16:05:28 UTC