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

Re: postponed issues

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:57:28 -0400
Message-Id: <89E86977-9D19-4793-8C9D-F72AD343D9AD@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Jeremy/Peter/everyone else -
   I think the "extra logical" feature set was a request to allow  
features to be associated with assertions that wouldn't have a  
logical implication.  The WG partially solved this with annotations  
(allowing comments, labels, etc.) but since annotations were sort of  
a last minute add on, and there were a number of post publication  
comments that asked why annotations could not be used as all the  
other types (i.e. in OWL 1.0 there was no provision for making a  
subproperty of an annotation property, which many people did anyway,  
since it can be very useful -- i.e.  :wikipediaReference  
rdfs:subProperty rdf:comment ) When Dan and I were doing final  
cleanup before going to the director on Rec, we decided to leave this  
as postponed since it hadn't been completely handled, but the main  
need had been addressed (by the invention of annotations).    It's  
been a few years, so I may not have the chronology exactly right, but  
that is my memory of it.
  I've been wrestling with Section 4.4 of the structural spec trying  
to figure out if Entity Annotations are limited the way they are in  
OWL 1.0 or not.  My belief is that that is the section which handles  
the postponed issue - and that with the addition of owl11:axiom and  
with annotations taken more seriously, that OWL 1.1 addresses the  
issue and thus closes the postponed issue.

On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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
> ]

"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 Wednesday, 24 October 2007 13:00:16 UTC

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