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

Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:18:40 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f0dbb14b6350bde@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org


>
>>  In certain contexts, I think OWL would be useful with some ontologies
>>  preimported.
>
>Well, this would not be OWL.

With due respect Peter, this must either be the dumbest thing I ever 
heard you say or, more likely, we're somehow not understanding each 
other.  Most of our tools enable the user to start with ontologies 
pre-imported -- for example we are building a cancer research project 
that starts from the NCI OWL Lite ontology.  It comes preloaded.  If, 
on the other hand, we started from having the user hit a button and 
import that ontology, it would not come preloaded.  I cannot see how 
this would make any difference to whether something is OWL or not.

My suspicion is there is some deeper issue which you are responding 
to. If we're just arguing about how the term "is OWL" is used, then 
it isn't worth much time, because the use of our vocabulary is out of 
our control once we publish it.

  -JH

-- 
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 Tuesday, 17 June 2003 08:18:50 GMT

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