- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:10:37 -0400
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
At 12:52 -0700 4/5/04, Uschold, Michael F wrote: >As I understand it, RDF Schema is a subset of OWL, so why would the >abstract syntax would be less appropriate? > >Mike > > because there is no reason for the whole world to have read the OWL S&AS document just so they can understand our examples -- esp. folks interested in RDF linking more than OWL's modeling properties. > > -----Original Message----- >From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:06 PM >To: Frank van Harmelen >Cc: Uschold, Michael F; public-swbp-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating >OWL fragments > > >A further concern I have is that many Semantic Web users use mainly RDF >with maybe just a tiny bit of OWL ... To communicate with them OWL Abstract >Syntax is not appropriate. > >Jeremy -- Professor James Hendler http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 17:10:50 UTC