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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:27:25 +0000
Message-Id: <35446E24-7823-45F7-9E44-D4770B4D0051@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov

On 17 Jan 2007, at 22:33, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> 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.
> 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?

The line from the draft charter proposal reads:

	"""Outreach material (e.g., overview, guide, etc.)"""

I meant this to suggest what *sorts* of documents the WG should  
consider for outreach material, not to *enforce* specific documents.  
"Reference" got into "etc." because that was the order I was thinking  
of examples, and 1, 2, etc. is a pattern I use :) I would expect that  
one of the first substantial decisions of the working group is what  
sorts of outreach material to produce (and how).  Something to  
consider over the coming months.

> 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  
> 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?

The new mapping is largely backwards compatible, and I would imagine  
that all the examples in the reference and guide are valid OWL 1.1  
RDF., but I've not checked yet.

I find Hans' approach to be interesting and could be useful, and  
could be helpful in defining a "skinable" document that would allow  
you to see the examples in any of the canonical syntaxes. But that  
doesn't require a working group to do, and is perhaps better done  
outside of one.

Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 15:27:05 UTC

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