W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Focussing and process within the group

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:00:55 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimxhXv65pmns4tHz=KN7a3ur118vT1X2G1j+nJz@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
This sounds good to me.

I'm finding it helpful to stop asking "what does a URI mean" but
instead ask "what needs to be expressed and is a URI the best way to
do that".

Also remember that precise and meaningful (by which I mean:
consequential, both inferentially and operationally) are not the same.

I'd like to revive the idea of a group ontology building process
similar to what they use in some of the OBO projects.  Sketch:

- We have an OWL file (or set of files) somewhere with edits
restricted according to a the following rules.
- The file is divided into 'entries', one per term, consisting of
prose definition, axioms, endorsements, and comments area or pointer
to discussion
- Each entry has a local accession number that is independent of any
decision about URI or label
- What's important are the definition and axioms, not the label.
There can be suggested labels but no one is held to them... until we
get close to publication time...
- Each entry has 'endorsements' for that version of the entry, of the
form "this entry version makes sense to [name]". Silence is not
assent. (Alan R can elaborate on what you're being held to by
"endorsing".)
- There should also be a place to put followon discussions... could go
in rdfs:comment but maybe we will need a tracker
- New entries, and new version of entries, are discussed on list
before being added.  Endorsements are specific to version.
- Imports: anyone can include endorsement of terms they want to use
from other ontologies (DC, FOAF, IAO)

The hard part is administration. Easiest for now might be a single OWL
file in a place that all editors can write.

Alan, can you provide a pointer to an OBO process document that
describes something like this?

Jonathan

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm going to (try and) completely forget the driving questions I've had for
> a long time, namely "what does a URI name?", httpRange-14, and the like. My
> constant posturing and making bold statements in order to get some
> (dis)agreement/feedback isn't doing anybody any (real) good.
>
> I do feel like I've made some progress at last, but it gets lost any time I
> try to define what a URI refers to, or apply what I've figured out to that
> question.
>
> So, I've added myself to the AWWSW home page (hope that's ok?) with the
> Individual aim of:
>
> [[
> Nathan Rixham would like to have precise definitions for those elements of
> web architecture which are at the intersection of the HTML/Web App, Semantic
> Web and REST communities, where the definition of those things matches
> "reality" and can be found agreeable by the respective communities. The
> purpose of this is to be able to quickly remove some things from the
> equation when answering difficult questions, to have some constraints to
> test specifications against, and to aid answering the other members
> questions.
> ]]
>
> Tomorrow I'll add a new page to the wiki (again, if that's ok) which will
> hopefully grow to be a collection of precise definitions of certain elements
> of the web, when a time comes that I'm happy with one, I'll post it to the
> list in order to seek some agreement, and if we can add it for discussion at
> the telecon, if there's time.
>
> An example would be:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Feb/0008.html
> But more refined.
>
> I believe taking this approach will cut my noise on list and perhaps bring
> some measure of progress, for me personally at least.
>
> Is that okay with everyone?
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 15:01:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 February 2011 15:01:29 GMT