- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:46:56 +0100
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Smith, Michael K wrote:
> Great document.
Thanks!
> Two comments.
>
> 1. Negation and disjunction considered hard?
>
> I would place these in the class "easy to understand by our target
> group". Is your categorization due to complexity for tool
> builders/reasoners?
Certainly reasoning etc becomes harder when disjunctions are involved.
For the "target group", of course we can argue about this. My experience is that:
- people don't use union of classes all that much
- the only use of negation is for disjointness statements,
and these are included as separate items
Also: people can't/don't deal with nestings of these.
But I agree, it's certainly an area where I can well imagine we go the other
way than our "first stab".
> 2. Syntax (nag, nag, nag)
>
> Determining the semantic components of OWL should be our priority,
> no question.
>
> The only thing I take exception to here is "we expect that
> a single syntax won't do". I don't know quite what that means. In
> one sense, I agree whole-heartedly, let a thousand flowers bloom.
>
> That said, we are defining a language. There must be a rigorous
> statement of what the sentences of that language are. These are the
> strings for which our semantics will provide a meaning.
>
> One syntax description will be primary. Nothing prevents anyone from
> providing what they think are better human or machine engineered
> syntax on top of this. In particular, the WG can specify a
> translation from the definitional syntax to an alternative we deem
> critical.
I agree. One syntax should be primary. The document should have expressed that
better. I think your last paragraph says it exactly right (provided the
translation is both ways).
Frank.
----
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 10:47:01 UTC