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

Re: "FAST" OWL and "Greater" OWL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:09:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020924.220909.132794169.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: "FAST" OWL and "Greater" OWL
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:11:14 -0400

> Ian,
> 
> I have a different take on this. Indeed if we were presented with Greater
> OWL _alone_ I'd share your concerns. Rather we are presented with two
> options:
> 
> 1) one perhaps more restricted, better characterised and with known software
> techniques for implementation.
> 2) the other looser, less characterized and indeed a more researchy field.
> 
> The risk is that if Greater OWL is proven untenable, then we are left with
> Fast OWL. Sounds fine to me. 

Actually the burden of proof has to be the other way.  Large OWL has to be
proven tenable to be the basis for a standard.

> What is the real problem with that except that
> it requires a bit more work to develop _both_ model theories? (on the other
> hand if Pat is willing to take on this work then I for one am in no position
> to complain...) 

I have already put considerable work in on Large OWL, at least compared to
the time I have available between now and the next deadline, so it is not a
matter of ``a bit more work''.

[...]

> Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 22:09:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT