- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:32:35 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3c.org
At 1:02 PM +0100 9/4/02, Ian Horrocks wrote: >On September 1, Jim Hendler writes: >> As Mike Dean mentioned a few weeks back, we have released the first >> real langauge-based working drafts of the OWL langauge - successor to >> DAML+OIL. We could use some feedback as to whether we are going in >> the right direction. The document >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ >> is a short summary of the language and will show what has changed so >> far from DAML+OIL. We would welcome feedback on the public mailing >> list (see below) if you have issues with any of changes or, in fact, >> if you think these changes are positive -- i.e. just a "this looks >> good" would be useful feedback >> We would particularly like feedback as to whether the naming of a >> subset (Owl Lite in these documents) is a good or bad idea. >> In addition, there are some who feel that stopping at OWL Lite would >> be a good idea (i.e. come out with a simpler version w/less >> inferential power, but easier to implement) - we need feedback on >> this as well > >Jim, > >I am really rather amazed to read the last sentence. The stated >purpose of OWL Lite was to provide an easy entry for tool builders, >and not an alternative to or replacement for the full language. > >If members of the WG believe that we should "stop at OWL Lite", then >they should declare themselves and open an issue in the normal >way. Currently, I see no such issue, and am not aware of such a >suggestion even having been (openly) discussed. > >Ian > > >> thanks much >> Jim H > > CoChair, Web Ontology Working Group Ian- In our discussion of the compliance level issue there were indeed those who said we should have only one level and it should look a lot like Owl-lite (go read our archives) - at the time the chairs and the WG decided not to hold that specific discussion, however we ruled that it was within the scope of the OPEN issue 5.2 [1] (Guus, if you remember differently, please correct me) That said, in this particular case, however, I was not referring to WG discussion, but to a comment received in our public comments list [2] which stated "Forget about OWL-Heavy (for now; maybe forever)" and for which I was soliciting feedback from the DAML community, who have been users of the DAML+OIL language and would be likely candidates to provide feedback on both sides of this issue, making it easier for us to have appropriate documentation of whichever decision we take when we move on to Candidate Recommendation. -Jim Hendler p.s. In future, please be more careful about forwarding mail from limited distribution groups to public ones - no harm done in this case, but obviously there may be times when the author doesn't want to send to a public group. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Sep/0000.html -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 08:32:44 UTC