- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:55:45 -0800
- To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I've put pointers to both on the LC comments page. Thanks. -Alan On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com> wrote: > > A slightly longer version of this comment appeared on the jena-dev > list and is archived at [1]. I believe it provides additional context > that may be helpful in understanding the question and formulating a > response. > > [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/37828 > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:35, Taylor Cowan <taylor_cowan@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> I'm a bit disappointed with owl2. Just stepping back, considering the domain from the perspective of an internet technologist unfamiliar with semantic web technologies, it's probably confusing that the language used to order, model, or govern the semantic web (which is to be composed of RDF in various manifestations, RDFa for example) won't use RDF itself, and requires tooling to translate between itself and the lowest common denominator of the sem web. >> >> I'm aware that the working group is composed of experts who know much more about this stuff than I do, but I fear that OWL2 will dampen the growth of the practical semantic web unless it's extremely complimentary and supportive of RDF. > > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia > >
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 19:56:19 UTC