[seek-kr-sms] growl: owl-dl or owl full?!

Ferdinando Villa ferdinando.villa at uvm.edu
Thu Jun 10 08:21:50 PDT 2004


My suggestion is to consider what the realm of GrOWL is, i.e. making
complex things intuitive, and adopting the framework that has the best
chance of defining the product within that realm. So I'm in favor of
having ONE operation mode - thus avoiding triggers (to avoid code
explosion and more "interface opacity") and I don't think we should
worry about owl-full constructs - UNLESS our KR gurus tell us that
they're an absolute necessity for the purposes of SEEK.

cheers, ferdinando

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 10:42, Serguei Krivov wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I am working on growl editing and have an urgent design issue:
> 
> Should we impose the editing discipline which would allow owl dl
> constructs only and    do nothing when user tries to make an owl full
> construct? Some editors like oil-edit (that works with owl now) are
> intolerant to owl full. Personally I think that this is right since
> owl-full ontologies are difficult to use. OWLAPI seems also not really
> happy to see owl-full constructs, it reports error, however somehow it
> processes them.
> 
>  
> 
> Ideally one can have a trigger which switch owl-dl discipline on and
> off. But implementing such trigger would increase the editing code may
> be 1.6 times comparing to making plain owl-dl discipline. I would
> leave this for the future, but you guys may have other suggestions (?)
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> serguei
> 
>  
-- 




More information about the Seek-kr-sms mailing list