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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:23:29 +0000
Message-Id: <C936D9DC-1318-4F9B-BD4A-DFC1E5DBA954@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>

On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> In the interest of readability, I won't inline comments

You should definitely complain to the Eudora folks.

>  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,

Cool.

[snip]
> 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.

Sounds good. I think they *are* blurred in my mind, at least, because  
I do think of the languages identified in the document as good  
candidate species, or starting points thereof. However, *new*  
*sub*species are not the only thing to be considered in a  
rationalization of the species framework (do we keep owl lite?!, what  
do we call a language that includes qualified cardinalities?). I  
think we have a fair bit of experience in both coarse grained (the  
species) and fine grained (e.g., see swoop's or pellet's expressivity  
checkers) language identification. So, something useful might well be  
done there.

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

Will make that change.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:23:45 GMT

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