- From: Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:49:55 +0900
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-10-16 at 17:02, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > In practice that means that we expect the full functionality of Fast OWL > to be implemented, whereas some aspects of Large OWL will not be, and we > will not define a minimal requirement for Large OWL implementations over > and above Fast OWL. If a minimal requirement for Large OWL is not defined, we can have an implementation of Large OWL that is solely given with the Classes as instances feature. I am cuorious if this implementation is usable or not for those who want to have the Classes as instances feature in the OWL Lite. Another point is if a minimal requirement for Large OWL is not defined, the Large OWL is not a language but a class of ontology languages. This means we might have a complecated "network" of languages within the Large OWL(s). However, I still strongly support to have the inclusion ordering: OWL Lite < OWL/FOL < Large OWL, because it makes easier for ontology users to decide which OWL should be used for individual situations. -Masahiro Hori Masahiro Hori, Ph.D. Group Leader, Programming Models & Tools, IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory Tel: +81-46-215-4667 / Fax: +81-46-274-4282 Email: horim@jp.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:49:55 UTC