> > Am I the only one who thinks OWL 1 users will want to know, in no > uncertain terms, whether OWL 2 breaks their stuff, BEFORE they accept > OWL 2? Figuring that out by sifting through our entire spec seems a > bit > much to ask. > +1 (or more like +10^6) I believe that a number of LC comments were motivated by confusion on this, and I think the point that in many ways OWL2 reduces the OWL DL v. OWL Full distrinction has gotten lost - it's certainly the case that when I defend OWL 2 to other AC reps, they are usually surprised to hear me say this. Further, there are a number of real companies/ agencies using Sem Web technology (including some OWL) and many of them are fence-sitting right now -- I think there needs to be somewhere in the documents where this is explained in simple terms, and elsewhere where the technical differentiations are easy to find (or, this could be a separate document released as a note, although I'm not sure it needs that level of effort) -- so I am in favor of the idea of cleaning up the "what is where" but think removal of this information could lead to significant work at the AC level - and I'd think we want to avoid that As I've said before (and suspect I'll say again), the more confusion the WG creates (or doesn't resolve) the less likely all our work proves to have been worth it. -JH > -- Sandro > "Con un poco de semántica ya se consigue ir muy lejos" Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler, twitter Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:51:11 UTC