Re: OWL Lite semantics

The chair is stepping in now.

1 - I am not willing to reopen any current decisions of the WG with 
respect to closed issues based on the current discussion - this means 
I'd like not to hear "should we do something different than DL for 
OWL DL" at this point.

2 - I see no reason to discuss the history of Description Logics on 
this mailing list.  rdf-logic is a wonderful place for that

3 - It may be the case that OWL-DL wishes to point at some of this 
Description Logic literature, in which case I might suggest someone 
take what was in Deb's note, turn it into text and find an 
appropriate place in our documents (maybe Guide?) to reference it. 
One of the arguments for having OWL DL was the perception that there 
existed this literature, as well as a market segment (in the medical 
informatics world) so the literature pointers might be worth 
collecting -- but not worth arguing about on this mailing list.

4 - Jeremy's proposal for a different semantic restriction for Owl 
Lite does not contradict any explicit decisions made by the WG as far 
as I can tell - thus, please focus any discussion of the 
ramifications of what he proposes on what he proposes, not on general 
discussion and flaming that adds nothing to that discussion.

- we all get plenty of email as it is without revisiting a lot of 
this - rdf-logic has been boring lately, a much better place to flame

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 14:48:07 UTC