Re: concerning lite, fast, large versions of OWL

• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:07:49 -0400
• To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>
• Message-ID: <016601c2769f$27ceb110$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>

Christopher Welty WROTE:
...
>
> The simple issue is that adding this as a feature to OWL Lite creates a
> complicated relationship between three languages, whereas keeping OWL Lite
> as a subset of OWL/FOL keeps a simple layering.  If OWL Lite is not a
> subset of Fast OWL, and in fact if classes as instances are allowed, then
> there would be things you could say in each that you couldn't say in the
> other, and this would create interoperability problems.  There is simply
> no way around this argument.
>
> There is a strong aesthetic argument for this, and a strong political one
> as well.  I have already heard outside mumblings that we are creating a
> complicated "network" of languages (I think this may have been a result of
> the original OWL Lite debates), and I believe a simple layering addresses
> that criticism.
>
> -Chris
>

Well said.

Jonathan

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 08:27:51 UTC