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: <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:24:14 +0000
Message-ID: <1132629854.43828f5e5373a@mail.inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>:

> 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.

In context, the complexity point was:

  even XML people cannot understand RDF/OWL due to those logics
  and the way of RDF presentation. That's why this technology is
  not well accepted and deployed.   That's why I said here before,
  the more complex the system, the less the user. It's the same
  to developing semantic Web services.

For people trying to understand, and making decisions about
adopting, RDF/OWL can be significantly more complex in the
ways that most affect their decision.

-- Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 03:24:25 GMT

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