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 14:45:57 +0100
Message-ID: <471F4C95.5080309@hpl.hp.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Thanks

then that does look like an issue that we are actively addressing (or 
not) in this WG

Jeremy

Jim Hendler wrote:
> 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 13:46:33 GMT

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