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

Re: postponed issues

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200710241546.LAA18162@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com


With regards to postponed issues from WebOnt, Jeremy Carroll
wrote:


>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!)

I prefer at least:  too hard - research needed.  This explains why
it would be out of scope which is helpful in answering future questions
about the feature set covered in OWL-revised.

>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
>]

I too would like to see compound key support.  It shows up in models
that support supply chain scenarios that we are working on, as well as
in manufacturing operations models that we developed long ago.  
The feature may well be "too hard" to be included in this revision, but 
I would like to see some discussion on that before we postpone it again.

-Evan
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 15:47:40 GMT

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