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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:39:45 +0100
To: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEFGCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


Many of my HP colleagues talk to me in favour of something like OWL-lite.

Personally I don't care.

The arguments I hear from my colleagues are:
+ users who don't want to learn all of OWL can concentrate on learning OWL-lite
+ implementors who don't want to implement all of OWL can concentrate on
implementing OWL-lite
+ a belief that there is a sweet spot which is substantially less than DAML

I hear an expectation that the choice of features is driven by an assessment of
user need not ease of implementation. Thus Frank's assessment of which features
in DAML+OIL get used most often is the crucial input.

It all makes a certain amount of sense, and while I have some sympathy with
those in the WG arguing against two levels I would vote according to the
feedback I am getting from the HP community.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Christopher Welty
> Sent: 11 July 2002 04:25
> To: WebOnt WG
> Subject: Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]
>
>
>
> 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 Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:40:17 GMT

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