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

Re: OWL Documents and new WG (was Re: New draft charter (was Re: Responses to "Draft of charter for NextWebOnt (Proposed) Working Group"))

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:33:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200701172233.RAA29029@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

I agree with Bijan that we have a very good start on some of the tasks
we need to accomplish to create an OWL 1.1 Recommendation.  In fact, in
my mind, the hardest part of reaching this goal is defining the model
theory and getting the proof of implementation.  Here we have a huge
head start.  But this only addresses the implementation side of an OWL
1.1 specification.  

We must also have at least one complete and authoritative reference for 
users to appeal to for answers to questions about the language or as the 
basis for discussions with implementers (the vast majority of users don't 
find language semantics such as in S and AS comprehendible, nor should they 
have to).  For OWL 1.0, OWL Reference filled this role well. For me this was 
the most important document in the OWL Recommendation.  I propose that we 
revise this for OWL 1.1. Bijan: Did you intend the Functional-style Syntax 
document to replace the role of Reference in OWL 1.1 or was OWL Reference a 
potential Outreach material in your deliverable list?

I think that Guide and OWL Overview are less crucial.
Guide was important when most people were using text editors as authoring
tools for OWL in RDF/XML.  Purpose built OWL editors are now the dominant 
tool type for OWL authoring (Protege-OWL, SWOOP, TopBraid, etc), and RDF/XML 
will be seen by fewer and fewer users as time goes on.  OWL Overview is 
largely redundant with OWL Reference, although it currently is the OWL 
document that succinctly describes the OWL sublanguages and it provides nice 
overview of OWL for people new to the Semantic Web.

I am not yet sure how major an undertaking revising OWL Reference for 1.1 
would be.  The language features are not that different in 1.1, but OWL 
Reference used RDF/XML examples and had enough of an RDF perspective that 
it could require major revision (if the new mapping changes that perspective).
Any of the OWL 1.1 Member Submission authors care to offer an opinion on that?  

Almost no standards activity completes within a year, but if we continue
to refine the charter that Bijan has created, particularly the deliverable
section, we should be able to define OWL 1.1 as quickly as is possible.
Stab the stawman now, rather than the standard activity later.


Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 22:36:23 UTC

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