Re: Introductions

I certainly care more about Full, and its subsets, than DL - whether  
that would mean I would be on a Full TF would depend what it meant -  
if we're primarily talking semantics, then I'm happy to wait and  
review - I can certainly help w/use cases, survey, etc and the groups  
I'm working with are almost all using Full (actually, the RDFS 3.0  
subset or something close thereto, but according to current OWL  
lingo, Full is Full even if you're using a limited subset)
  -JH




On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> Michael Schneider wrote:
>
>> I would like to focus my contribution primarily on OWL-1.1-Full  
>> related
>> questions. While technical aspects would be my main concern, I  
>> would also be
>> interested in doing some surveying on the current situation of OWL- 
>> Full,
>> which usecases, user groups and experiences exist, in order to be  
>> able to
>> make more realistic estimates about the future of this language. I  
>> have to
>> admit that I am not at all an experienced expert in the area of RDF
>> compatible semantics, but I hope that my contributions will  
>> nonetheless be
>> useful to the WG, and will help to get the whole spec deployed in  
>> time.
>
> Maybe, we should plan to make a Full sub-group or task force or  
> whatever its called. I suppose it partly depends on how many people  
> want to be involved. If it's basically you and me, then we wouldn't  
> need the infrastructure!
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180