Re: OWL Lite semantics

>Given the short time to get to our documents out, I think we would 
>be best off if
>we used our email message time towards making proposals that we 
>think are likely to
>help the group reach agreements that are operational.
>I think the line of explicit and implicit description logic bashing

OK, OK, calm down. I only made a passing remark, and I tried to say 
that it wasn't meant to start a row; but nevertheless it was, I 
think, worth making in the context: there was a genuine confusion 
being caused by the DL/logic distinction, and it was germane to the 

(I have to say, you DL folk are *extraordinarily* touchy and 
defensive. Particularly the ones from Bell Labs. )

>     - unproductive (it does not make sense at this point to start 
>over with another
>foundation for OWL at this late date

You speak here, I take it, as the person who is planning to produce 
an 'axiomatic semantics' for OWL, ie a translation of OWL into logic?

But I didn't in any case for a moment mean to suggest that we should 
be changing anything, only to express regret that we didn't do things 
better in the first place.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 14:12:50 UTC