Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full

Jim Hendler wrote:
> <flame on - but not at Matthew>


without wishing to fan Jim's flames, ...

one aspect I noted at the F2F was that there is this decidability litmus 
test there is some wiggle room, and the actual drivers for what was a 
compelling argument and what wasn't had to do with the use cases and 
customers who we each had in mind.

I found this was most noticeable when I talked about geometry.
Obviously this was my *personal* interest rather than a business 
interest, so as HP rep, I am not going to push this. But any 
computational difficulties in using OWL to describe various geometric 
problems that I am interested in are basically irrelevant, in 
everybody's opinion (including mine), because geometrical reasoning 
(particularly the rather abstract problems that I like) is simply not a 
use case. (Fundamentally because mathematicians are poorer than 
bioscientists).


So, as HP rep, I found the Oracle presentation compelling, much more 
compelling than most, because the Oracle customers and the HP customers 
are similar and doing similar things. However, none of the presentations 
were explicit in terms of customers, and we have made precious little 
advance on a use case and requirements document, so that the hidden 
differences between us (the various members of this WG) in terms of what 
we are trying to do with OWL, for whom, and why, remain hidden.

I think, until we have made significant advance in Use Case and 
Requirements, Jim will continue to feel that the rest of the group have 
an agenda hidden from him, and is wanting to make decisions that don't 
make sense to him.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 14:39:01 UTC