- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:38:56 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Jeremy, others, It was certainly not my intention to suggest that backwards compatibility is only important in the context of DL, nor did I want to downplay the importance of OWL Full. If my comments seemed to suggest this, I apologise. Best, Rinke On 25 jan 2008, at 17:04, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Rinke Hoekstra wrote: >> and are particularly concerned about their use in combination with >> DL semantics... > > [and in a different message] > >SKOS is already OWL Full, I believe, so I guess deprecating > deprecation > > would not really affect users in this case. > > The member submission documents are written in terms of OWL DL. > > However, the charter of this group is about OWL (both DL and Full). > > If what OWL Full people do doesn't matter to this group, then we > should be applying for a change in charter - to work on DL only. > > Those people who would want to be part of such group (not me for > instance), would then need to work out what sort of relationship > they would want with other people in the OWL world. But > participating in this group is about looking at the bigger picture, > not just an OWL DL perspective. > > So - in terms of the two comments - the greater the difference we > make between OWL DL and OWL Full the harder we make it for users of > either set of technologies to revise their decisions and migrate. > > So for users who use deprectaion and currently are using OWL Full, > as many as people in this group seem to know, these users are making > a serious mistake, and in a couple of years they will realise the > error of their ways and decide to migrate to an OWL DL solution. > > The more decisions we make that create divergence between OWL DL and > OWL Full, and the more we ignore what people in the OWL Full world > are doing when we think about the OWL DL design, the more difficult > such migrations will be, and the more this group will have failed to > meet its charter objective of: > > produc[ing] a W3C Recommendation that refines and extends OWL > > Jeremy ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 16:39:03 UTC