- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:04:13 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 15:24, pat hayes wrote: > [...] > Maybe we ought to be honest about this split and present a > document which discusses the issue and gives an outline of both > perspectives. I like it... > As I see it, the two basic views are roughly as follows, listed in no > particular order. > [...] > PS. I could try to draft a document along these lines, which would > try to give the pros and cons of each perspective and explain the > issues involved in a lay-readable form, if the WG feels that it would > be useful. Obviously it would have to be ad-hominem-purged. I'd like the overview editors to do the purging and integrate the above into section 1.3 The three sublanguages of OWL of the overview. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/#s1.3 I think this is a big improvement on the justification of the sublanguages. cf. 31Jan discussion of justifying our sublanguages in the context of the TAG finding on profiling XML... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0566.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 17:04:29 UTC