- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:32:32 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[snip] Sandro: > Guideline 9. Allow extensions or NOT! [6] > > They want us to say whether extensions to OWL are allowed or > not. I think the answer is they are not. If you add anything > to DL it's no longer DL. But given RDF's same-syntax semantic > extension form, one could also say extensions are of course > allowed; they just don't have any semantics in OWL. Are we > concerned about vendors touting software which implements > OWL-plus-proprietary-extensions, and the interoperability > problems that might create? > > I propose adding at the end of TEST Section 4.2.1 (Syntax > Checker) something like: > > OWL is not an extensible language. The underlying RDF > graph may contain non-OWL terms (subject to the > restrictions in 4.1.1 on OWL Lite and OWL DL) which are > used as RDF extensions, but they do not extend the syntax > or semantics of OWL itself. > > or just > > OWL is not an extensible language. JimH (personal opinion): OWL (Full) is indeed an extensible language. OWL DL is probably not. I would be fine with the statement OWL DL is not an extensible language. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 23:32:49 UTC