Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]


I am really extremely ambivalent about having a "lite" version of OWL. 
Personally I have no interest in it, and see little value in it, but I 
understand the "cheap admission" argument for implementors.

That said, I keep hearing this argument, over and over again:

"I think X should be in the lite version because I use it all the time."

If you use a feature, all the time or not, that is not in OWL-lite, then 
use heavy OWL.  "Removing" a feature from OWL-lite is not removing it from 

But even more silly than that statement is Dan's recent:
"[I don't think there should be an OWL-lite] ... [but] ... [I think 
disjoint-with should be in it]"

Those of us who don't really see the value of the lite version of the 
language probably shouldn't be commenting on what should be in it.


Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA
+1-914-784-7055 Fax: +1-914-784-6078

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 23:25:13 UTC