Re: OWL 2.0 ...

Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
>  (NOTE: This is a private message, it has no link to the Sem Web 
> activity, or anything else -- I write this wearing my professor hat!)
> 

(NOTE: This is a private message, it has no link to the Sem Web activity, or anything else 
-- I write this wearing my geek's hat!)

My vote would be to add either probability or fuzzy logic models as soon as there are 
tangible results to do so. This issue comes back very often in the feedbacks I receive.

Ivan

> In recent days I've been attending a lot of meetings where I have been 
> approached by people talking about not just the limitations of the 
> current OWL (something I've been hearing about for a long time :-)) but 
> actually talking about proposed technical solutions.   I think it would 
> be good to start to collect some of these and to think a bit about those 
> things that we might want to see go into some future OWL version
>   There's a wide variety of these things going from simple extensions to 
> OWL (such as adding qualified restrictions, having an owl:allDisjoint , 
> etc.)  to adding some standard ways of doing common things in other KR 
> langauges  (part-whole, bounded transitivity, probability models)  or 
> going beyond to new concepts in Sem Web (new models of partial import, 
> named ontology segments, etc.)
>   I'd like to hear what people are working on, or what people need - 
> this way we'll have these ideas on record for the eventual next 
> generation of OWL technology.
>   -Jim H,.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/