RE: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)


Sorry, I haven't read every email on this topic, but I am missing something.

RDFS permits one to make statements about classes as instances. 
Why would you expect there to be a migration path from RDFS to OWL Lite?

Is it that the migration you expect is only for certain subsets of RDFS, 
and you can't imagine those subsets not including rdfs:seeAlso?

- Mike

Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.
EDS - Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX  78701

* phone: +01-512-404-6683

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll []
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:38 AM
To: Jonathan Borden; Jeremy Carroll;
Subject: RE: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)

> Yes, well, to speak plainly, I expect that if you we forbidden to use the
> terms "rdfs:seeAlso" and "rdfs:isDefinedBy" under penalty of
> death, that you
> would be able to design a long and productive life for yourself. Let's not
> use the term "can't live with" too lightly, eh?


you are right of course - (well, God willing).

but I really do think I would vote against further progress of OWL along the
recommendation track in some instances ... and the RDFS => OWL Lite
migration is one of those showstopping issues for me (of course that might
be an incorrect judgement, I am influenced by having worked on RDF
developers kits and RDF standards; and HP has a greater RDF investment than
say Description Logic investment).


Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 10:07:25 UTC