- From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:39:22 -0800
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I'm getting increasingly concerned about the notion of associating OWL sublanguages (Lite/DL/Full) with documents (as opposed to tools and other processors of those documents). We probably made the right decision to postpone sublanguage-tagging of ontologies. I think we want to encourage ontologists to express "everything" they know about their application domain, without major concern for the language level(s) of the consumer(s). If some tools ignore some of this information, so be it. The alternatives are pretty bleak: never express anything beyond the lowest common denominator (OWL Lite or RDFS) maintain separate versions of an ontology for different language levels - a configuration management nightmare provide some sort of mechanism like "#ifdef owldl ..." This isn't to say that there isn't some utility for a tool that can identify ontologies/content for which, e.g., an OWL Full or OWL DL reasoner would offer value beyond an OWL Lite reasoner. Given this view, our tests should probably each identify the expected results for each of our sublanguages for the given test input (at least in cases where the results are expected to be different). Mike
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 13:39:58 UTC