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

Re: TEST I5.24 - 004 was RE: Partial? regrets May 1st

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:51:01 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0305071113010.956-100000@potato>

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> Ian
> > p.s. I believe that this is yet another example illustrating how
> > crazy it is to try to write OWL in RDF syntax without tool support -
> > even we (the "experts") can't get it right!
>
> I am finding having a syntax checker really handy - even with the OWL Full
> tests where the syntax checker is technically useless, (the file is OWL Full
> necessarily), asking it why it is not OWL DL is certainly interesting.

I couldn't agree more. In this example, the differences between using

<owl:Thing>

and

<owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/>

are rather subtle (and was something I too got wrong in my original
translations of the DL tests). Tools support isn't the end of the matter
though, as our experience (with DAML+OIL) has been that different tool
developers have different interpretations as to how to use the constructs.

> This particular example was labelled OWL Full - if I had asked why I would
> have a surprise.
>
> I am getting more taken with OWL DL as time goes on.

<darthvader>
Luuuuuke, join us on the dark side.....
</darthvader>

Cheers,

	Sean

-- 
Sean Bechhofer
seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 06:54:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT