From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
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. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST