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

Re: less technical documents

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:54:02 +0000
Message-Id: <F471C24A-0900-4A09-8340-BDB3AFDABEBD@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Could you sent out the attached information in a non-proprietary  
> format?

Actually, if it's a table like this, I'd prefer that it was in the  
wiki (which supports tables), or in a google spreadsheet the whole WG  
had access too.

Since I'm mentioning google spreadsheets, I guess I'll mention my  
summary of feature requests/offers from OWLED2007:
	<http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTmcCXR-dV6TdDo24Tse-fQ>

I went through all the papers and tried to identify features or  
extensions that were identified as a need, actually used, or proposed.

I'm not 100% confident of either my coding or my categorization (I  
was pretty exhausted when doing it :)), but I think it's a reasonable  
first approximation. I made no attempt to weight by  
"representativeness", marketability, or market growing power. I did  
weight by rough technical difficulty/appropriateness for WG/ 
likelihood for consensus. OWL1.2 features are things of roughtly the  
same effort as 1.1 features. OWL 2.0 are fairly radical additions and  
adjuncts are things that don't necessarily require touching the core  
language.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 08:54:28 GMT

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