From: tim finin (
Date: 04/15/02

"David R. Karger" wrote:
> None of the other names was any more natural to the man on the
> street.  Since they are going to have to learn new vocabulary, we
> might as well use the previously defined terms.

I hope the man in the street never sees any raw OWL or DAML anymore
than he should have to look at HTML or postscript.  The person who
might have to look at the OWL description generated by an application,
tool or syntactically sugared surface language will be (IMHO) someone
like a software engineer, a system administrator or a DBA.  They
probably won't be a person with an interest in KR, with advanced
degrees or who has ever worked in an R&D environment.

I like Pat's notion of describing constraints on properties by
describing how they are used, but isn't this the domain of an
intuitive, high-level surface language (N3++?).  We still need to
decide on what this compiles into and how to express it. That lower
level language needn't be optimized for human understandibility,
though it should not be obscure.

The kind of people who may have to look at low level OWL are much more
likely to be familiar with descriptions from information systems
(e.g., one to many) than with the language of mathematical functions.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST