- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:18:40 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> >> In certain contexts, I think OWL would be useful with some ontologies >> preimported. > >Well, this would not be OWL. With due respect Peter, this must either be the dumbest thing I ever heard you say or, more likely, we're somehow not understanding each other. Most of our tools enable the user to start with ontologies pre-imported -- for example we are building a cancer research project that starts from the NCI OWL Lite ontology. It comes preloaded. If, on the other hand, we started from having the user hit a button and import that ontology, it would not come preloaded. I cannot see how this would make any difference to whether something is OWL or not. My suspicion is there is some deeper issue which you are responding to. If we're just arguing about how the term "is OWL" is used, then it isn't worth much time, because the use of our vocabulary is out of our control once we publish it. -JH -- 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 Tuesday, 17 June 2003 08:18:50 UTC