- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:29:09 -0400
- To: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3c.org>
> > We must address this issue at some point, and I believe feedback on > it was important. By asking for feedback on X I am in no way > prejudging X, but inviting both X and NOT(X) feedback. > > I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. I also would be terribly disappointed if we don't do a FULL OWL, indeed, I (and others) would very probably just use DAML+OIL as a better OWL. I am not at all convinced that OWL-Lite would serve the needs of the medical community, which has a large use of DL e.g. SNOMED. I think that if OWL can't capture SNOMED etc. then it will fail this community in the long term, and well, thus my interest in this project will plummet.. I think that OWL-Full would likely capture SNOMED ... perhaps Ian who has alot of experience in medical ontologies can better answer this. In any case for my personal needs, any subset of OWL that can capture SNOMED (for example, not neccessarily exactly SNOMED, but at least something alot like it) would be fine by me ... this is my own line in the sand ... so short of some real evidence that OWL-Lite is able to capture, again for example, SNOMED, I strongly oppose stopping there. More generally, I fear that if we don't capture the needs of the DL community then we will have failed to create a true Web Ontology (interchange) language, where different tools can create ontologies, share and manipulate them. That said, I don't have a problem with folks that only need a subset of OWL to define such a subset and talk amongst themselves -- which is what I had thought the purpose of OWL-Lite was, no? Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:46:08 UTC