W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

comments on Model Theoretic Semantics (was Re: document pubication schedule)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:04:50 -0400
Message-Id: <90BDC99D-CD81-47E8-A4F5-E327E4B70B3C@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

My comment on the Model Theoretic Semantics may surprise some people  
-- I find it well written, I can find no obvious bugs in it, and I  
have no problem seeing it move to a WD at the soonest point the group  
can so decide.   i do note that, like the structural semantics, the  
use of authors/contributors may not be consistent with

On Oct 22, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Here are my comments on the three options that Jeremy is outlining.
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: document pubication schedule
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:21:51 +0100
>> We are meant to publish something by early January at the latest.
>> On the table we have a proposal that we basically publish the three
>> member submission docs.
>> Given that Jim and Deb both found that the lack of e-mail  
>> discussion was
>> a problem - I wanted to go back to square one and try listing  
>> options -
>> and seeing which of these options had some clear support.
>> Option 1:
>> (from telecon - with clear support)
>> Publish member submission documents, with disclaimer indicating that
>> while this are the focus of our discussion they are not yet  
>> 'consensus'
>> documents -
>> amendment from HP: perhaps not RDF Mapping
> I'm in favour of this one.
>> Option 2:
>> (variant of option 1)
>> Publish member submission documents but only those parts for which we
>> already have consensus, with stubs where we don't have consensus yet.
>> I would expect this to emphasis subproperty chains and QCRs as the  
>> two
>> main new consensus features
>> I doubt that there would be enough consensus over any part of the RDF
>> Mapping doc to make it worth publishing.
> Let's take a closer look at this option.  If you mean consensus that
> each document part is in close to its final form, then I think that  
> this
> is way to early to get consensus.  If, however, you mean consensus  
> that
> each document part is good enough to publish as a FPWD, then it may be
> reasonable to go this route, provided that it can be done reasonably
> quickly.  (See http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
> for more information about what W3C thinks is appropriate for a FPWD.)
> We have had explicit homework since 12 October to read the OWL 1.1
> documents
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0040.html)
> and we should have done so even earlier.  Thus it should be  
> possible for
> thse who have problems with publishing any part of the three documents
> as FPWD to bring forward their problems before the teleconference this
> week.  If there are documents with no significant problems then it
> should be possible to publish them quickly.
>> Option 3:
>> My proposal from the telecon, dropped due to no obvious support at  
>> the
>> meeting:
>> Start with an OWL 1.1 requirements doc.
>> This would have the advantage of taking the possible readership of a
>> FPWD with us; as opposed to the highly technical member submission  
>> docs,
>> which are likely to only be meaningfully read by a tiny elite.
> I view this as a bad way to spend several months of WG time,
> particularly if the technical documents cannot advance while this
> document is being worked on.  Remember as well that we are supposed to
> be going to Last Call early in August 2008.
> I have no problem with members of the WG working on the charter
> requirements deliverable in the near future.  (In fact, I think  
> that it
> is a good idea to do so.)  I may have some time to devote to this
> deliverable, but I don't expect to be spending most of my WG time on
> this deliverable.
>> Are there other suggestions ... or advocacy?
>> While my preferences are option 3, then option 2 then option 1 -  
>> at the
>> telecon I got the distinct impression that there was no support for
>> anything other than option 1. I am happy to help advocate  
>> something else
>> - but not in a minority of one.
>> Jeremy
> peter

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 22:07:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC