- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:03:28 +0100
- To: NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of NANNI > Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:43 AM > To: Jim Hendler > Cc: SWBPD > Subject: [WRLD] Some few questions about the formal > description of the TF [...] > So, for me the most important thing we have to do is to > convince the reader that OWL is a good language and that he > migth uses it as much as possible. Obviously the > demonstration will based on some comparisons betwen the > languages but always, in my mind, according to the fact that > OWL is the most powerful one. At breakfast this morning, I used a chain saw to take the top off my boiled egg, as it was the most powerful tool I had available. Shame I didn't have one of those loud pneumatic road digger thingies :) Seriously, though, the point I want to make is that there is a notion of appropriateness of a tool to a task. It may be that there are no tasks for which RDFS is more appropriate that Owl, but perhaps that is something to examine rather than assume. Brian
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 10:15:52 UTC