W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:29:53 -0500
Message-Id: <c6cd28c453d2ff861d55e7057cf52193@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk

On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:21 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:

> Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>:
>
>> (By way of refutation to your bromide about complexity and users, I'll
>> point out that XML schema is definitely more complex than OWL (by many
>> measures, including computational complexity) and more widely used. 
>> So,
>> eh.)
>
> I'm not convinced that that is true in practice.

Sigh. Note the point about "by many measures" and the point about 
*computational* complexity (XML Schema is undecidable; OWL DL is 
NExpTime; it may never matter or it might be that most actual XML 
Schemas allow linear conformance checking). Of course, if there is a 
sweet spot, then that can explain why something "more complex" is used. 
But that's exactly a nuance that matters.

[snip]

> The point is that, for many purposes, learning enough of
> XML Sxchemas will be easier than learning enough OWL.

Sure. And the task that XML Schema is generally used for is more 
"obvious" and was antecedently desired. I think my point stands. The 
point being that just saying "too complex" is rarely a sufficient 
explanation.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:30:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT