- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:06:41 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Dimitrios A. Koutsomitropoulos wrote: >> >>Can somebody explain some formal reason why the concrete and abstract >>domains (i.e. the datatype and individual sets) have to be disjoint in OWL >>DL? > >I think in addition to the other postings, I would suggest >procedural reasons. Those who like this separation could point to >implementations (both real and theoretical algorithms) based on this >idea, and had the advantage that Daml+OIL has this separation. >Anyone wishing to challenge that really needed to point to working >systems, with academic creditionals, that was as credible. I don't >think this point was seriously challenged. >Politically, those who were most likely to want to challenge this >separation were happy enough with OWL Full. > >The point of deliberately ignoring your request for *formal* >reasons, is that any such reasons will be the views of some (but not >all) of the WG. OWL was determined using a process, which was >(roughly) to take DAML+OIL and raise issues against it. IIRC this >issue was not (formally) raised, so the separation is in OWL because >it was in DAML+OIL (not for technical reasons) > Just to clarify, the reasons I suggested in my earlier email referred to the discussions during the design of DAML+OIL. As Jeremy points out, the result was never seriously debated in the process of designing OWL from DAML+OIL. Pat >Jeremy -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 14:06:59 UTC