Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)

On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 12:47, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> So, to reiterate, what is missing from the OWL and OWL' proposals that
> makes them unsuitable as examples of approaches 2 and 4?

I don't think anything is wrong with them as examples of approaches.
They're probably fine discussion starters; at least in theory...
in practice, they don't seem to have started much discussion.

I started reading them in preparation for the ftf, but I didn't
get far along enough to understand them well enough to agree
or disagree with them.

Has anybody else?

My problem with them at present is that I haven't finished
reviewing the requirements document, so I'm not likely
to be in a position to support them or argue against
them by this Thursday. Sorry about that.

[...]

> > >Well, I believe that there already are proposed solutions using approaches
> > >2, 3, and 4.
> > >
> > >Approach	Proposal
> > >
> > >2.Syntax and semantic extension
> > >
> > >OWL - 
> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text
> > >
> > >3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics
> > >
> > >DAML+OIL - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference
> > >
> > >4.Differing syntax and semantics
> > >
> > >OWL' - 
> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol.text
> > 
> > (Bad URI, please check)
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol-xml-rdf.text
> 

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/