• To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>,"XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• From: "Bob Foster" <bob@x...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:34:38 -0500
• References: <3EA963E5.527F5F39@m...> <3EAAA9FA.64DEBA35@f...>

From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
> [Last week Roger Costello initiated a discussion of OWL and OWL
> ontologies both here on XML-DEV and also on the RDF-interest list. This
> week he has posted a follow up to RDF-interest but not here on XML-DEV.
> Without wishing to cross-post, I believe that the topic remains of as
> much interest here as on RDF-interest and I am therefore initiating a
> new thread based on my response to Roger on the RDF-interest list.]

Yet here you are, cross-posting. This discussion seems more appropriate to
RDF-interest. Though I can see why you just had to share with us:

>My very different take on the role of semantics in a universal
>internetwork of complementary and interdependent processes:

all it's going to accomplish here is rile Simon. ;-}

Bob

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Next by Date: RE: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Previous by thread: duh! Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Next by thread: Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread