- From: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:32:23 +0300
- To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
. > >wrong, wrong, wrong. > >Your examples only show that the restriction to named classes >doesn't formally restrict the expressiveness of the language >(since you can always introduce "gensym'd" class names in a >place where you would use a class expression). > >The point of the "divisive issue" was not that the restriction >to named classes only makes the language formally less >expressive, but that >- nested expressions it make the life of tool implementors harder > (simple example: the clunkiest part of OILed is editing these nested > unnamed expressions), and also it makes the >- they are one of the hard parts for people to learn/read in >the language >- many appliers report that they only use named classes anyway > >So, the issue is not a formal simplification, but a >pragmatic/conceptual simplification. >I though we went through all this in A'dam? I would like strongly to add my voice to second what Frank has written here, in a very clear manner. I regard the pragmatic and conceptual simplification inherent in restricting to named classes to be such an advantage that I would support a delineation between OWL light and OWL heavy even if the sole item distinguishing between the two is named vs. unnamed classes, and they are equivalent in all other respects such as cardinality etc. -- Ziv
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 13:32:55 UTC