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

RE: LANG: first sketch

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:45:03 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322140C48E169@USPLM207>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Ian and Frank,

Great document.

Two comments.

1. Negation and disjunction considered hard?

I would place these in the class "easy to understand by our target
group".  Is your categorization due to complexity for tool
builders/reasoners?

2. Syntax (nag, nag, nag)

Determining the semantic components of OWL should be our priority,
no question.

The only thing I take exception to here is "we expect that
a single syntax won't do".  I don't know quite what that means.  In
one sense, I agree whole-heartedly, let a thousand flowers bloom.

That said, we are defining a language.  There must be a rigorous
statement of what the sentences of that language are.  These are the
strings for which our semantics will provide a meaning.

One syntax description will be primary.  Nothing prevents anyone from
providing what they think are better human or machine engineered
syntax on top of this.  In particular, the WG can specify a
translation from the definitional syntax to an alternative we deem
critical.

- Mike

Michael K. Smith
EDS Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX 78701
512 404-6683
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 09:46:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT