W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: feedback on OWL Lite

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:41:53 +0200
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
cc: "Jones, David H" <david.h.jones@boeing.com>, "Clark, Peter E" <clarkp@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com>, "Thompson, John A" <john.a.thompson@boeing.com>
Message-ID: <1381117572.1029339713@swpc243.cs.vu.nl>

The following are comments from Mike Uschold <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
on the Feature Synopsis document, and are passed on with his permission:

> A good way to present this information to people with minimal time or no
> interest in the gory details is short punchy summaries and justification:
> 1. what is different from RDFS, (added, deleted, changed)
> 2. what is different from DAML+OIL  (added, deleted, changed)
> 3. some indication of why each feature was included or not (not necessarily
> feature by feature, but to include the rationale for the decisions makes it
> easier to asses).
> 4. An indication of whether the standard features are done in a completely
> standard manner, or whetehr there are some interesting differences. E.g .I
> am never motivated to read yet anotehr English (or formal for that matter)
> description of transitivity, or cardinality. I want instead to be told that
> this
> I infer form the list of RDFS things that whatever comes after that is NOT
> RDFS, so you seem to have gotten the gist of 1.
> It is not clear what [DAML+OIL minus OWL-Lite] equals, or what the
> differences are between DAML+OIL and Full OWL. This makes it much more
> time-consuming to understand and assess because it means having to read it
> all from scratch.
> There is little by way of rationale, other than at the very general level:
> keep it simple for the masses (as per XML experience) and expand to suit the
> specialist needs. I agree with this wholeheartedly.


Thanks for your comments.
To me this says that in the next version we should definitely put more effort 
- difference lists between OWL Lite, Full OWL, RDFS and DAML+OIL
- a rationale for the items in these difference lists

Your comments are very much in line with Jacco van Ossenbruggen's earlier 
comments (see [1]), making the case all the much stronger.

Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl              http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
Department of AI, Faculty of Sciences,  Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
de Boelelaan 1081a, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel (+31)-20-444 7731/7700 fax (+31)-84-221 4294

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 09:42:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC