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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:09:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230916c1d2fa8f992d@[]>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

In the interest of readability, I won't inline comments
  I think the small changes that Bijan made are valuable, and also 
that his responses below are generally very reasonable.  I'm going to 
take the issue of documents to a separate thread, other than that, I 
think we're overall closer to agreement,

  One issue that arises from this and other subthreads from my 
response is that I am a bit concerned about the discussion of the 
"rationalization" of fragments from the charter.  In particular, the 
specific wording:

# Rationalization of the species of OWL. For example, identifying 
useful and usable sub-languages that are (more) tractable and/or 
efficiently implementable, e.g., with standard relational and 
deductive database technology.

     * The Working Group should determine whether continuing the 
"species" framework for end users is the best way to serve the OWL 
community, or whether the identification of interesting fragments by 
the Working Group is "merely" informative.

seems to blur two issues, that I think need to be separated - in 
fact, some of my objections originally came from some confusion that 
has been somewhat alleviated by the overall discussion in the thread 
and Bijan's response.

There are two issues here
   1 -  identifying useful subsets of OWL other than the ones in the 
original draft
   2 - rationalizing the current species of OWL
It is the putting of these two together (implying that they were not 
orthogonal issues) that confused me.  I would suggest thinking about 
what the key point or points are here and making it clearer.  As 
written, I think there is confusion.   My suggested change would be 
simply to remove the words "Rationalization of the species of OWL. 
For example" and making the subclause a separate bullet.  This would 
make for two scope statements - one on identifying useful and useable 
sub-langauges that are more tractable etc and one on determining how 
best to continue the species framework.

I think that would make the charter clearer and avoid the confusion 
that these two are somehow linked.
   -Jim H.

At 10:41 AM +0000 1/16/07, Bijan Parsia wrote:
There are some interesting debates on substance in this thread. 
However, I think it distracts a bit from the discussion of the 
charter *per se*. So, I would ask, for clarity of discussion, that 
people split off substantial substantive debates into separate 
thread. Here I'm trying to respond as much as possible wrt to the 
charter alone. I've made some changes to the draft to address the 
concerns Jim has raised.


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 Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:10:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC