- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 Feb 2002 14:25:27 -0600
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 12:47, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > So, to reiterate, what is missing from the OWL and OWL' proposals that > makes them unsuitable as examples of approaches 2 and 4? I don't think anything is wrong with them as examples of approaches. They're probably fine discussion starters; at least in theory... in practice, they don't seem to have started much discussion. I started reading them in preparation for the ftf, but I didn't get far along enough to understand them well enough to agree or disagree with them. Has anybody else? My problem with them at present is that I haven't finished reviewing the requirements document, so I'm not likely to be in a position to support them or argue against them by this Thursday. Sorry about that. [...] > > >Well, I believe that there already are proposed solutions using approaches > > >2, 3, and 4. > > > > > >Approach Proposal > > > > > >2.Syntax and semantic extension > > > > > >OWL - > > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text > > > > > >3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics > > > > > >DAML+OIL - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference > > > > > >4.Differing syntax and semantics > > > > > >OWL' - > > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol.text > > > > (Bad URI, please check) > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol-xml-rdf.text > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 15:25:08 UTC