W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Responses to "Draft of charter for NextWebOnt (Proposed) Working Group"

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:41:30 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230960c1cffdf0381a@[192.168.0.102]>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
At 5:02 PM -0500 1/12/07, Kendall Clark wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

  I would like to see one "OWL Ultralite" that is as close to RDFS as possible


I'd be happy to look at the model theory or axiomatization of such a 
beast, if it's available. Not having seen anything yet, it's hard to 
say whether it's interesting, either practically or theoretically.



Kendall - you've seen the model theory!  This has been said all along 
to be a subset of OWL, so the OWL documents provide the model theory 
(and reference, and examples, and test cases, etc.)


While I disagree that the TFs are motivated by "theoretical aspects" 
only, they have the virtue of having been written down and can be 
discussed publicly.

Well of course you haven't seen it yet - we're discussing whether 
this WG should be the place to create one, whether people will submit 
through the notes process, or whether this will occur in some other 
WG.  I certainly have opinions as to what I'd like to see in a 
language, but that's not the discussion we've been having in this 
thread.
  To be clear, my comment is that, as I have stated publicly, and 
continue to do so, my WG made a mistake in not considering users 
enough in the design of the "lite"  fragment of OWL.  I do not want 
to see another WG make the same mistake, this is called experience. 
So I ask the WG to either take on the issue by adding usability to 
the design criteria (as many WGs do) or to remove this fragment from 
the scope of THIS working group so they can be worked on by a group 
that will be responsive to the commercial comments we've been hearing.
  -JH
p.s. note that this is only one of many things in the scope of this 
WG, so this is only an argument at the moment on this small piece of 
the charter, not on chartering the WG more generally


-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Tetherless World Constellation Chair		http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Computer Science Dept			301-405-2696 (work)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst			301-405-6707 (Fax)
Troy, NY 12180
Received on Sunday, 14 January 2007 15:42:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT