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

Re: postponed issues

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:36:34 +0100
Message-ID: <471F2032.3060905@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Alan:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PostponedWebontIssues
]]

I've edited to show my take on these issues - while I nitpick with Peter 
over terminology (e.g. I put "out of scope" where he says "too hard - 
research needed", for a number of issues where I would assert that named 
graphs move the world forward a little!)

Summary:
I suggest we continue to postpone 4 issues with no further discussion.
We add 2 issues to the list, with the expectation that they are 
addressed with new design.
We add 3 issues to the list for substantive discussion.
Last issue I think is a record keeping error: can Jim look at it please
=====


My suggestion is as follows:

a)
we continue to postpone

4.8 Trust and Ontology 	
5.4 OWL Quote 	
5.12 Entailing inconsistencies 	
5.25 Justifications 	

and I personally am happy to do so with no further discussion

b)

3.2 Qualified Cardinality Restrictions 	 in OWL 1.1 	
5.7 Range restrictions 	in OWL 1.1 	

we add these to our issue list, so that the original issue raisers can 
be informed that they are addressed when we publish the design in 
consensus WDs - or to postpone again if we don't get consensus design.

c)

4.4 Extra Logical Feature Set 	in OWL 1.1 	

incorrectly postponed? actually closed?


Could Jim or someone else from webont look at this - the records seemed 
muddled to me. I read this just as a closed issue.

(does the objection show at some director's review - why 'postponed?' 
rather than 'closed' or 'postponed')


If peter sees this as addressed with axiom annotations, then I guess 
this comes under (b) - [My current brief from HP is to oppose axiom 
annotations].

d)
I believe substantive discussion of these three issues would be valuable 
(perhaps not much discussion but at least five mins!).

4.3 Structured Datatypes

6.1 Unnamed Individual Restrictions

6.2 Compound Keys 	

[Out of order, while issues are not open for discussion, my own take is:
  4.3 - we could add this if we wanted, I don't much, but would ask 
colleagues
  6.1 - reject this
  6.2 - I thought the research was done, I would like to hear other 
people's assessment - some of HP's customers would like this, so I would 
like to see this in OWL 1.1 if possible
]
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:37:07 GMT

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