From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
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.

Anyone who actually produces webpage markup had better be able to see 
HTML, and even get reasonably proficient at recognizing what is wrong 
with it, even if they use a highlevel tool such as Dreamweaver. In 
fact I'd bet that much of the reason for HTMLs initial success was 
that it is in fact fairly easy to learn how to use it (in at least a 
basic way) even when viewed as source in a normal text editor. OWL 
needs to be in the same ballpark if it is not to go the way of the 

I would add that until someone actually manages to produce one of 
these often-spoken-of high-level authoring tools that will protect 
the MITS from seeing DAML, it might be unwise to depend on it quite 
so thoroughly.

>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.

There should be no need to compile it into anything. If you design it 
right, it could BE the KR language, with the model theory attached to 
it directly.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
[email protected]

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