- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:02:15 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > I disagree with a large amount of Pat's message, particularly his > characterizations of my feelings and my positions. However, I do agree > that removing Large OWL from the equation improves the chances of an > eventual success. I would not go so far as to say that removing Large OWL > from the equation makes the chances of success very large, but it does > definitely improve the chances. I think Large OWL is being dismissed here too quickly. You might find Large OWL extreme from your point of view, but users (knowledge engineers) may feel the same about Fast OWL or your model theory. I would prefer to keep it as an explicit option on the table, even if we decide not to go for it in OWL 1.0. Guus > I would certainly not say that finishing Fast OWL is just a matter of > tweaking the details, although I am optimistic that Fast OWL can be > finished (and I have a document that, based on Pat's idea of having > owl:Thing be a subset of rdfs:Resource, contains an integrated > specification of something very close to Fast OWL). There is one very > large caveat to this optimism, however, as the viability of an OWL based on > RDF(S) is dependant on a good RDF(S) specification, including datatypes and > model theory. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > -- A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 05:07:05 UTC