Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote:
> [snip]
>> [[[
>> ... 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 :)
> 

Oops:-) Well, why don't we say they are hopefully (for him) funded but
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 :)
> 

Sorry. What I meant is: I know that Jan's system is primarily used by
people (at least in the Netherlands) who concentrate on OWL Full-like
applications. I did not mean to say that a prolog environment is
inherently OWL Full only.

Ivan

>> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf