On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Jim Hendler wrote: > but let me be clear - I think there are two approaches that would > be valid for the Working Group - either take usability and the real > world into account, or leave the task of defining other OWL subsets > to people who do. What is a mistake is for the group to take it on > and do it on purely theoretical grounds - all we'll end up with > another travesty like OWL Lite Jim, 1. Can you fix yr mail app so that it quotes other people's text properly? I'm interested in following this conversation, but it's kinda hard when all the voices blur together. 2. For my money (uh, literally!), DL-Lite and EL++ (and RDFS, in a different way) are already strongly and explicitly motivated by real world considerations. (And, FWIW, the existing TF doc *does*, inline, offer some 'real world' motivations for, say, EL++ and DL-Lite. These can be strengthened and should be.) My new company is interested in the TF stuff specifically so that we can build a product around it, and take that product into the federal market. Perhaps playing the Expressivity Game against Oracle and IBM is a losing battle, but we don't know that (yet), and having a standards doc will help make that market, if it's going to be made at all. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 16:24:52 UTC