Re: concerning lite, fast, large versions of OWL

[second attempt, first one disappeared yesterday...]

Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> Reasoners for OWL/RDF-style will be much harder to implement than reasoners
> for OWL/FOL-style (complete reasoners would be impossible to implement if
> OWL/RDF-style turns out to be an undecidable language, as it might well be)

Barring the possibility that RDF-style turns out to be undecidable, does
anyone have any concrete (practical) estimates of what  "much harder to
implement" really means? I am looking for a *compelling* pragmatic argument
against the classes-as-instances feature.

I tend to be in favor of allowing metaclasses since it is my (perhaps
limited) experience that many "real world" representation problems benefit
from this -- but I could be convinced otherwise if suitable numbers were
presented :-)

I guess generally I am hoping the discussions about features etc. would go
beyond "soft" arguments along the lines of "much harder to implement".
Harder than what? How much harder? Does it really matter? (hmm... I called
"harder to implement" a "soft" argument)

    - Ora

Ora Lassila
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center
Chief Scientist, Nokia Venture Partners

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 09:11:10 UTC