- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:47:00 -0600
- To: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 13:17, Enrico Motta wrote: > > Hi all, > > My preference is for something that combines the 2 suggestions from Jim: > > OWL Lite > OWL DL > OWL Plus (or OWL Full) That appeals to me. I think I prefer OWL Full to OWL Plus; DL and Lite seem to me to be constrained versions of OWL Full. > I am not keen on having one of the 3 versions being called simply > 'OWL', with no qualifier. The reason why we have produced 3 dialects > is essentially that the WG believes that there is no single OWL which > we are prepared to declare as the standard OWL language. Our naming > convention ought to reflect this view. > > Enrico > > PS I strongly dislike OWL/RDF (all OWL dialects are supposed to be > based on RDF, so it is going to be confusing that one in particular > is called OWL/RDF and that this is a superset of the others) , > OWL/FOL (FOL is misleading, it implies that the others are either not > logic-based, or logic-based but not FOL-compliant), and OWL FAST > (kind of implies that the others are slow, which is not a good > selling point, not even for FAST OWL itself!) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:46:46 UTC