Re: proposal for working on the ontology language

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
>                 Changes needed in DAML+OIL
> 
> I am concerned that the group is not working on the ontology language
> itself.  There are a number of changes that need to be done to DAML+OIL,
> [...]
> 1/ Semantics
> [...] 
> 2/ Syntax
> [...] 
> 3/ Datatypes

I fully agree with this. I suggest we also add:

4/ Choice of primitives

After living with DAML+OIL for almost a year now, and having talked to lots of people who have used it (and even more people who haven't), I am getting pretty convinced that we got the 80/20 balance wrong in DAML+OIL: 20% of the primitives account for 80% of the usage/required expressive power, and the other primitives contribute to a pretty high step-in cost. I would suggest we reduce the language to deal with these issues. 

Also, we have lost rather too much of the "frame-style" modelling in the language. Too often DAML+OIL requires a significant mental shift before one can express the intended knowledge. 

I don't think either of these points will require a whole-sale redesign. 

I am willing to contribute to both of these issues. 

Frank.
   ----