RE: XG W3pm Scope

Sorry guys, but I think this is putting the cart before the horse.

First I think we need to understand the area we are looking at. It may well exceed the limitations of any DL.

Then we should look at which useful DL subsets there are that can be exploited by various tools.

Regards

Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/




> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-w3pm-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-w3pm-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of kendall@clarkparsia.com
> Sent: 30 May 2008 16:30
> To: Evan Wallace
> Cc: David Leal; Bohms,H.M. (Michel); public-xg-w3pm@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XG W3pm Scope
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 30, 2008 10:29am, Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
> said:
> 
> > How is the Product Modeling XG planning on using the Semantic Web
> > languages?  The above
> > triple messes with the OWL vocabulary.  Do you care if you stay in
> OWL
> > DL or do you intend
> > your OWL/RDFS model for these things to be merely a schema for data
> in
> > RDF form?
> 
> As an OWL reasoner vendor (see http://pellet.owldl.com), these
> questions get to my primary concerns, namely, that OWL be a good fit
> for product modeling, but that we try to stay within OWL DL, chiefly
> OWL2 DL (or whatever OWLWG ends up calling it). To that end, re:
> measurements & units, I think we should (1) make sure that OWLWG knows,
> formally, that we have use cases & requirements for, say, n-ary
> datatype predicates; and (2) that we try, inasmuch as possible, to make
> our measurement & unit "stuff" fit what OWL2 will provide.
> 
> Evan, since you're on both groups, I hope you'll be able to help both
> understand the situation of the other, in cases (like this) where
> there's overlap.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall Clark
>

Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 15:42:08 UTC