W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Response to QA comments, Comment on QA draft

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:32:32 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f27bb0da42d6ea3@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

[snip]

Sandro:
>   Guideline 9. Allow extensions or NOT! [6]
>
>       They want us to say whether extensions to OWL are allowed or
>       not.  I think the answer is they are not.  If you add anything
>       to DL it's no longer DL.  But given RDF's same-syntax semantic
>       extension form, one could also say extensions are of course
>       allowed; they just don't have any semantics in OWL.  Are we
>       concerned about vendors touting software which implements
>       OWL-plus-proprietary-extensions, and the interoperability
>       problems that might create?
>
>       I propose adding at the end of TEST Section 4.2.1 (Syntax
>       Checker) something like:
>
>            OWL is not an extensible language.  The underlying RDF
>            graph may contain non-OWL terms (subject to the
>            restrictions in 4.1.1 on OWL Lite and OWL DL) which are
>            used as RDF extensions, but they do not extend the syntax
>            or semantics of OWL itself.
>
>       or just
>
>            OWL is not an extensible language.

JimH (personal opinion):

OWL (Full) is indeed an extensible language.  OWL DL is probably not. 
I would be fine with the statement OWL DL is not an extensible 
language.

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 23:32:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT