- From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:24:39 -0400
- To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
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 UTC