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

Many of my HP colleagues talk to me in favour of something like OWL-lite.

Personally I don't care.

The arguments I hear from my colleagues are:
+ users who don't want to learn all of OWL can concentrate on learning OWL-lite
+ implementors who don't want to implement all of OWL can concentrate on
implementing OWL-lite
+ a belief that there is a sweet spot which is substantially less than DAML

I hear an expectation that the choice of features is driven by an assessment of
user need not ease of implementation. Thus Frank's assessment of which features
in DAML+OIL get used most often is the crucial input.

It all makes a certain amount of sense, and while I have some sympathy with
those in the WG arguing against two levels I would vote according to the
feedback I am getting from the HP community.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Christopher Welty
> Sent: 11 July 2002 04:25
> To: WebOnt WG
> Subject: Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]
> All,
> 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
> OWL.
> 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.
> -ChrisW
> 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 Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:40:17 UTC