Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF

At 1:56 PM -0600 11/13/06, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Bijan,
>
>Thanks for your recent item on the relationship between OWL 1.1
>and RDF...
>
>http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2006/11/13/not-so-alternate-a-view-of-owl-11/
>
>I it addresses many of the concerns I have that Jim and Ora expressed
>http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/11/11/an-alternative-view-for-owl-11/
>http://www.lassila.org/blog/archive/2006/11/more_on_rdf.html
>
>Between the 3 of those posts, I feel the urgency to finish my own
>has gone down to the point where I can collect my thoughts
>on OWL 1.1 without rushing too much. I'm still thinking about how
>to reconcile punning, in particular...
>
>Oh... and I have been doing some relevant work...
>
>   Using ACL2 with Semantic Web Data
>   http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/Papers/owl-acl2/doc20
>
>I hope to look at the axiomatic semantics Jim mentions
>in that light.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Bijan - in the interest of bringing things to the mailing lists 
instead of blog wars (which actually seem to have better Google 
karma, but never mind) - you put the following as deliverables for a 
potential WG

Deliverables

     * Syntax and Semantics (S&S)
     * Outreach material
           o update/diff//what the wg decides
           o New material (e.g., tractable fragments)
     * Test Suite

this reveals one difference - I am not interested in elucidating the 
many tractable fragments, that's not a WG activity in my opinion - 
I'd be interested in identifying one particular tractable fragment, 
naming it, and getting it into note or rec form

to show where we are at the moment - the attached (HTML table) 
reflects where some of us have been playing - comments welcome
  -JH

-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science			http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA