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

RE: less technical documents

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:59:28 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0538@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


Bijan,

Thanks for the spreadsheet link.
Is it possible to integrate this Google spreadsheets stuff with the current
wiki?


Also, I find the feature list very useful. We should probably try to match each
feature list with domain specific and generic use cases. Will update the
spreadsheet to include a column called feature, though they appear to be 
at different abstraction granularities. Any thoughts?

---Vipul

=======================================
Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Informatician
Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
Phone: (781)416-9254
Cell: (617)943-7120
http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik
 
To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right questions
---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:54 AM
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: less technical documents
> 
> 
> 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.


The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 13:59:59 GMT

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