- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:54:02 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Hi: > > Could you sent out the attached information in a non-proprietary > format? Actually, if it's a table like this, I'd prefer that it was in the wiki (which supports tables), or in a google spreadsheet the whole WG had access too. Since I'm mentioning google spreadsheets, I guess I'll mention my summary of feature requests/offers from OWLED2007: <http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTmcCXR-dV6TdDo24Tse-fQ> I went through all the papers and tried to identify features or extensions that were identified as a need, actually used, or proposed. I'm not 100% confident of either my coding or my categorization (I was pretty exhausted when doing it :)), but I think it's a reasonable first approximation. I made no attempt to weight by "representativeness", marketability, or market growing power. I did weight by rough technical difficulty/appropriateness for WG/ likelihood for consensus. OWL1.2 features are things of roughtly the same effort as 1.1 features. OWL 2.0 are fairly radical additions and adjuncts are things that don't necessarily require touching the core language. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 08:54:28 UTC