[second attempt, first one disappeared yesterday...] Frank van Harmelen wrote: > Reasoners for OWL/RDF-style will be much harder to implement than reasoners > for OWL/FOL-style (complete reasoners would be impossible to implement if > OWL/RDF-style turns out to be an undecidable language, as it might well be) Barring the possibility that RDF-style turns out to be undecidable, does anyone have any concrete (practical) estimates of what "much harder to implement" really means? I am looking for a *compelling* pragmatic argument against the classes-as-instances feature. I tend to be in favor of allowing metaclasses since it is my (perhaps limited) experience that many "real world" representation problems benefit from this -- but I could be convinced otherwise if suitable numbers were presented :-) I guess generally I am hoping the discussions about features etc. would go beyond "soft" arguments along the lines of "much harder to implement". Harder than what? How much harder? Does it really matter? (hmm... I called "harder to implement" a "soft" argument) - Ora -- Ora Lassila mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com http://www.lassila.org/ Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center Chief Scientist, Nokia Venture PartnersReceived on Friday, 18 October 2002 09:11:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT