- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:58:08 +0200
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- CC: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Hepp, Martin" <mhepp@computer.org>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
[snip] Yup, re owl:imports, I enthusiastically added it to the FOAF spec when some OWL WG insider suggested it was the right thing to use, and dutifully removed it when someone (I forget who in both cases - quite possibly same person!) a few years later told me it had fallen from fashion within the OWL scene. Re attitudes to OWL ... I do agree there have in the distant past (ie. last year!) been a few casually dismissive remarks around here regarding OWL. It's all too easy for a healthy enthusiasm for practical tools to trick us into seeing tools that we're not so familiar with as impractical. I'm happy to have read plenty of useful discussion here and nearby about how best to use or augment owl:sameAs. FOAF is a described using OWL. I expect some day in the not too distant future, Dublin Core Terms will be described in OWL too. And the community on public-lod@w3.org have been excellent champions of both. Things aren't too polarised, despite the occasional lapses into "them and us"-ism... Optimistically, Dan
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 19:58:48 UTC