- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:34 +0100
- To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Carsten Lutz wrote: > Apologies, but this seems like a very strong claim to me. There are > different communities in this WG who come from different backgrounds. > As I wrote in my previous mail, I have strong reservations against DL > Lite and OWL-R as *ontology languages*. But still I don't claim that > they are out of scope for this WG (which is about ontology languages), > and I understand that they are useful in a context different from the > one that I am interested in. Clearly, there are people using OWL in an > RDF context, and there are people using OWL in other contexts. I feel > that if we want to do a good job in this WG, we should try to appreciate > and cater for all meaningful uses of OWL (at least as long as they > don't interfere with the semantic web use). This para got through to me. Some say: **Web** ontology language Others say: Web **ontology** language if we start being too purist in requiring our starred item to be strong then we will disagree too much - consensus has to permit Web language with weak ontology, and ontology language with weak Web. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 16:41:04 UTC