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

Comments on OWL

From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:56:56 +0000
Message-ID: <3DCC08F8.1E280742@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Jim, Ian, and Colleagues

I've debated jumping in for some time, but preparing and
delivering several DAML+OIL/OWL tutorials and working
with several groups trying to come to grips with it, convince
me that both points are valid.  I know the issue of implied
restrictions on defined vs primitive concepts is in some
ways a tools issue, but I think building the abstract syntax
in a way that so obviously causes confusion is a mistake.
It is likely to mean that many tools builders perpetuate the problem.
As for checks - many of us need them in many situations in which I
don't want to pay for them in global overheads and in which
we want to see violations transparently and not as unexpected
classifications.

Regards

Alan


--
Alan L Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL: +44-161-275-6188/6239/7183
FAX: +44-161-275-6204
email: rector@cs.man.ac.uk
web: www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
        www.opengalen.org





Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 08:51:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:27 GMT