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

less technical documents

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:21:37 +0000
Message-ID: <472624B1.4070005@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org


Several people (maybe: me, Deborah, Vipul, Jim amongst others) appear to 
want an early publication of something other than the three documents 
which we agreed to pursue (Syntax, Semantic, and Mapping).

If we want such a document(s) to appear on a similar timeline to the 
more technical document (i.e. within the first heartbeat of the WG), 
then we need to put up or shut up.

Personally, I am hoping to encourage others, rather than to do the work 
myself (my fear is that we are all in the same position).

===

One possible course of action would be to migrate

http://www.webont.com/owl/1.1/overview.html
to WD

with the following changes:

a) Change title to
   Overview and Rationale for OWL 1.1


b) add section
    Sketch Use Cases

and largely leave this unpopulated

c) change verbiage to be more OWL Full friendly

d) add a table at the end to show which of the new features is motivated 
by which of the use cases.

The new features as listed in that doc are:

DisjointUnion,
NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion
NegativeDataPropertyAssertion.

qualified cardinality restrictions
local reflexivity restrictions
reflexive,
irreflexive,
symmetric,
asymmetric properties
disjoint properties
property chain inclusion axioms

OWL mechanisms for  user-defined datatypes,
n-ary datatypes

punning
   individual - class
   individual - property
   class - property
   object property - data property

annotation semantics
axiom annotations

I am happy to do this, if there is support. I am not happy to be 
responsible for gathering up enough use cases even in sketch form, or 
for writing the use cases up.  If there is support, I hope Sandro could 
migrate the webont.org doc over first, with whatever magic wand he waved 
for the struture doc.

I would be happier if someone else, more prepared to own this piece of 
work through to Rec., would step up for it, probably with a totally 
different proposal for their document.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 18:22:13 GMT

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