- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:07:16 -0400
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I feel that there are really two different positions on issue 5.10 (DAML+OIL semantics are too weak). The first position is that what matters most is getting the entailments correct for OWL. This position would support entailments like John belongs to the intersection of Student and Employee entails John belongs to the intersection of Employee and Student and many other natural entailments. The second position is that what matters most is making OWL have the exact same syntax as RDF and have its semantics be an extension of the RDF semantics. This position would support entailments only if they can be done without disturbing this compatability. I find the first position by far the most compelling. I cannot understand why OWL should be potentially crippled by forcing it into a overly-strict compatability with RDF. peter
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 10:07:25 UTC