- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:23:29 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Jim Hendler wrote: > In the interest of readability, I won't inline comments You should definitely complain to the Eudora folks. > I think the small changes that Bijan made are valuable, and also > that his responses below are generally very reasonable. I'm going > to take the issue of documents to a separate thread, other than > that, I think we're overall closer to agreement, Cool. [snip] > There are two issues here > 1 - identifying useful subsets of OWL other than the ones in the > original draft > 2 - rationalizing the current species of OWL > It is the putting of these two together (implying that they were > not orthogonal issues) that confused me. I would suggest thinking > about what the key point or points are here and making it clearer. > As written, I think there is confusion. My suggested change would > be simply to remove the words "Rationalization of the species of > OWL. For example" and making the subclause a separate bullet. This > would make for two scope statements - one on identifying useful and > useable sub-langauges that are more tractable etc and one on > determining how best to continue the species framework. Sounds good. I think they *are* blurred in my mind, at least, because I do think of the languages identified in the document as good candidate species, or starting points thereof. However, *new* *sub*species are not the only thing to be considered in a rationalization of the species framework (do we keep owl lite?!, what do we call a language that includes qualified cardinalities?). I think we have a fair bit of experience in both coarse grained (the species) and fine grained (e.g., see swoop's or pellet's expressivity checkers) language identification. So, something useful might well be done there. > I think that would make the charter clearer and avoid the confusion > that these two are somehow linked. Will make that change. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:23:45 UTC