- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:05:41 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 6:53 -0500 3/20/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >From: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu> >Subject: pfps comments - clarification >Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:32:28 -0800 > >> >> peter suggested the following: >> >> "abstract - I suggest >> OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL >> Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full." >> >> have we decided that OWL Full is a sublanguage of OWL? > >Note that this doesn't say ``proper sublanguages''. :-) I don't think the group had an opinion on this, as Dan says, it is an editorial decision - personally I think "three ... sublanguages" is fine. > >> I am using the following for the moment. If this is incorrect, let me >> know: >> >> The OWL language family includes three increasingly-expressive >> languages: OWL >> Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full." strangely enough we do have a decision here - I can dig through the logs to find it, but I know that I made it clear to the group that we should NOT ever refer to these as three langauges (which would not be allowed per our charter), and I recall the WG agreed to this. >Hmm. I don't think that there is any good an concise way of stating the >exact details of the situation. I'm now no longer sure which of the >non-ideal concise sentences is best here. so I think we could use the first (sublanguage) or use a different term, but I think we should not use "language" as in the current wording (thanks for picking up on this Peter) -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 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 08:05:56 UTC