- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:45:03 -0600
- 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 UTC