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

Re: document pubication schedule

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200710222248.SAA14899@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org


Jeremy described some options for a publication schedule
for first Working Drafts.  Here are my thoughts:

>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 was originally lukewarm to this option, now I object to it.  What value 
is there in re-publishing these documents? They are already base documents 
by charter.  Let's work on getting some *group* agreement, and use the 
heartbeat deadline as incentive to publish something significant that 
reflects this agreement.

>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

That is a pretty conservative feature list.  Do you expect issues with
the support for more expressive restrictions based on datatype properties
and the user defined datatypes that go with that?  What about the new
metaproperty types in the OWL 1.1 proposal?

>I doubt that there would be enough consensus over any part of the RDF 
>Mapping doc to make it worth publishing.

This is an important document to evaluate in understanding how this new
design changes OWL as seen in RDF.  We should give ourselves more time
for this one.

>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.

We should work on this early in the process.  It would be very useful
for our group to have a document that presents, in a widely understandable
way, the feature delta that we are targeting for this revision of OWL.
Have you thought much about what this would include?  I don't think that
we need use cases.  What we do need are descriptions of each feature with
examples of how or where they might be used.  It also be helpful to 
include additional discussion of certain features that were requested  but 
not included and why.

Another possibility is to work on options 2 and 3 in parallel.  I would
be in favor of such a plan.

-Evan

Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
NIST
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 22:48:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT