W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:26:30 +0000
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3CF6B14B-F8BD-4A46-884D-C012E29222F2@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote:
> [[[
> ... Ie, the situation has _not_ changed compared to OWL 1.
> ]]]
> ie, his worries are unfunded.

I hope they are unfunded, but they are definitely unfounded :)

> If he could live with OWL 1 then he could
> live easily with OWL 2. That is the essence of what we have to say,  
> the
> rest is cherry on the cake, in fact... Let us not worry whether he  
> will
> have to change his toolchain later (eg, for RIF); this is not the
> subject for a LC comment response in my view...
> Cheers
> Ivan
> P.S. Jan's systems, based on Prolog, is primarily targeted at OWL Full
> applications,

Except for some stuff that punning and annotations now covers, I don't  
think this is *substantively* true. But an argument for another day :)

> so I believe his worries is really based on the false
> assumptions that _another_, non triple based syntax is to be used.

Note that the Profiles are easy to implement on tope of Prolog (Arity  
did one for EL++ way back). So, in fact, I'd argue that he's in better  
shape as he can implement stuff with reasonable expectation of getting  
the same results on other systems. Which makes his stuff a more  
attractive platform to start with even if its not adequate/appropriate  
for deployment.

Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 09:27:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC