- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:32:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
I disagree with a large amount of Pat's message, particularly his characterizations of my feelings and my positions. However, I do agree that removing Large OWL from the equation improves the chances of an eventual success. I would not go so far as to say that removing Large OWL from the equation makes the chances of success very large, but it does definitely improve the chances. I would certainly not say that finishing Fast OWL is just a matter of tweaking the details, although I am optimistic that Fast OWL can be finished (and I have a document that, based on Pat's idea of having owl:Thing be a subset of rdfs:Resource, contains an integrated specification of something very close to Fast OWL). There is one very large caveat to this optimism, however, as the viability of an OWL based on RDF(S) is dependant on a good RDF(S) specification, including datatypes and model theory. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 10:34:54 UTC