RE: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

> I see Jon's point, but am not totally convinced that another resource
> is necessary.

I think the addition of another resource is the easiest way to deal with
those cases where the degree of detail it offers is necessary. I do agree
that it is overly verbose for a lot of applications, some sort of dumb-down
mechanism that would allow the more detailed approach to co-exist with the
simpler would be a good thing I think.

Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 07:56:05 UTC