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

Re: document pubication schedule

From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:55:57 -0700
Message-ID: <471D388D.1070704@sandsoft.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I agree with Evan on both his objection to option 1 and his thoughts on 
a 'feature delta' document.

Thanks,

Elisa

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

>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 23:56:21 GMT

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