- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:45:47 +0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Thanks for the kind words. Anyone interested in reading the paper can find the full text at [1] (authors' freedom to publish full text on their web sites is part of the agreement with Springer relating to their publication of the ISWC proceedings). Ian [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPa03b.pdf On October 24, Dan Connolly writes: > > I just finished reading this paper* from the ISWC 2003 > (http://iswc2003.semanticweb.org/) proceedings (p17). > > The presentation of OWL to this audience is well done, with a balanced > presentation of OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full. > > The paper also clearly motivates many of the design choices in OWL DL > and OWL Lite in terms of the established research results. I copy > public-webont-comments to make this design rationale available* just a > few clicks from the W3C specs. > > The paper notes only the implementation motivation for OWL Lite, and not > the ease-of-learning motivation. And I (continue to) disagree with the > claim that DAML+OIL is "basically a very expressive description logic > with RDF syntax", but these are minor points. > Overall, the paper gives a very good account of the WebOnt Working > Group's efforts. > > > * the full text of the conference proceedings are, unfortunately, not > freely available via http, or I would give a pointer. > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 26 October 2003 06:50:56 UTC