W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:24:39 -0400
To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCF0003DC.EF1C1653-ON85256BF3.00108125@pok.ibm.com>

All,

I am really extremely ambivalent about having a "lite" version of OWL. 
Personally I have no interest in it, and see little value in it, but I 
understand the "cheap admission" argument for implementors.

That said, I keep hearing this argument, over and over again:

"I think X should be in the lite version because I use it all the time."

If you use a feature, all the time or not, that is not in OWL-lite, then 
use heavy OWL.  "Removing" a feature from OWL-lite is not removing it from 
OWL.

But even more silly than that statement is Dan's recent:
"[I don't think there should be an OWL-lite] ... [but] ... [I think 
disjoint-with should be in it]"

Those of us who don't really see the value of the lite version of the 
language probably shouldn't be commenting on what should be in it.

-ChrisW


Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA
+1-914-784-7055 Fax: +1-914-784-6078
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 23:25:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT