- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:47:19 +0000
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org, Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
I am sending this email as a representative of Oxford/Manchester and NOT in my capacity as member/co-chair of the OWL Working Group. In fairness to the researchers involved I should state for the record that: - the OWL QL profile is largely based on work carried out by researchers from the Università di Roma "La Sapienza" and the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano; - the OWL RL profile is based on work carried out by many researchers, with affiliations including Philips, MIT Sloan, Oxford/ Manchester, Karlsruhe, Galway, Oracle and RPI/UMB to name but a few. Regards, Ian On 24 Jan 2009, at 09:44, Frank van Harmelen wrote: > > Susie Stephens wrote: > >> 1. Personally, I feel OWL2 is a wrap-up of different recent >> efforts in the >> OWL community from different research forces, such as EL from >> Dresden, QL >> and RL from Manchester/Oxford. Given the usage of OWL 1.0 is quite >> limited >> in the industry compare to the usage of RDF, it may cost many >> extra efforts >> and is very challenging to teach system developers to use new >> OWL2, in >> particular, identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with >> limited logic background. > > Personally, I feel the same. > (see my other messages to the list for more technical comments by > our group) > > Frank. > ---- > > > -- > Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh > Working on the Large Knowledge Collider http://www.LarKC.eu >
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2009 11:48:09 UTC