Re: perspectives on OWL v.next and RDF

>On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>
>>  Danny Ayers wrote:
>>>  I personally have doubts about the wisdom of making a significant
>>>  increment to OWL at this point in time because of potential impact on
>>>  the adoption of RDF and OWL, but am happy to defer to Kendall, Bijan
>>>  and co. on the point that there is real demand for certain features.
>>
>>  I think he said that much better than I did!   I think
>>simplification is needed before pushing new functionality - I've
>>said that many times, but then I spent two years saying it to the
>>WG and failed there as well :-)   Seriously, I have no object to
>>new design work going on, but I think I'd be happier if  Googling
>>"-xxxxxxx filetype:owl" returned more hits before we began
>>extending...
>
>I consistently fail to understand the import of that kind of claim,
>as it seems to suggest that the public Semantic Web is the most
>important thing.
>
>Doesn't that ignore the history of the Web itself, which, as we all
>know, got a significant boost -- several such boosts, actually --
>from enterprise intranet adoption. But now for the Semantic Web the
>equivalent of "intranet adoption" seems not only not to matter but
>seems to be a problem.
>
>I don't get it.
>
>Lots more people are using OWL than are using it "on the public
>Web". Isn't that a *good* thing? I think it is. :>
>
>Cheers,
>Kendall