- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:36:24 +0200
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
There was some discussion at an earlier teleconf on what the deciding factor was to put something in the "Lite" part of the proposed language. I argued that the "Lite" part was "simpler", without being very clear on what "simpler" meant. A telephone conversation with Deb McGuinness prompted me to be more explicit about this design goal of the "Lite" layer. (I'm not speaking for Peter or Ian here...) Frank. ---- The OWL Light subset was intended to be simpler than Full OWL in some way. There was some discussion at the teleconf what "simpler" meant. It means "conceptually simpler", not "syntactically simpler", not "computationally simpler". - CONCEPTUALLY SIMPLER. The goal was to make a subset of Full OWL that was conceptually easy to understand by our target group, and that made it easy to say things that users want to say often. This is also the reason why OWL Light contains "shorthand notations" for things that could already be said in longhand. The shorthands are meant to make it easy to say and understand the things that people want to say often. - SYNTACTICALLY SIMPLER: This was >*not*< the simplicity we were striving for. In fact, I think it is unlikely that the OWL Light will have a much simpler grammar than Full OWL. I think it will be somewhat simpler through the lack of nested expressions (the <description>'s in [1]), but not much. - COMPUTATIONALLY SIMPLER: Again, this was >*not*< the simplicity we were striving for. Although OWL Light is in fact less expressive than Full OWL, this was not our main driving force. [1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 17:37:15 UTC