Re: DAML briefing to RDF IG

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 02/26/01

I think that your feature chart does not appropriately highlight the main
differences between RDF(S) and DAML+OIL.  

So just what are the main differences?  In my view they are

1/ formal semantics
2/ classes with both necessary and sufficient conditions for membership
3/ many more class-forming operators

The layout of the comparison chart and the presence of bounded lists and
reification obscure these most-important differences.

There is also a problem with expectations, due to the DAML name.  As I read
through the slides, I tried to think as someone who knew little or nothing
about DAML.  It was not until slide 8 that I saw any evidence that DAML did
anything besides language development.  (I know that I would not be unhappy
if this were indeed the case, but I think that Jim and DARPA would be a bit
surprised.)  Perhaps slide 8 could be moved to be the second slide and the
title of the talk changed to something like ``The DAML Ontology
Language''.  The titles of some other slides could also be adjusted.

There are also some minor problems with the slides.  As mentioned by
others, ``concrete'' is being phased out.  I would not use ``technology
transfer'', instead using something like ``proposal''.  I would also not
use ``Next Steps'', because the four items there have very different lead
times and time to fruition.  The link to the datatype draft is not
(currently) correct. 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST