W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Fragments discussion

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:35:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080201.103500.168736427.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Fragments discussion
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:31:25 -0500

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Fragments discussion
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:47:38 -0500
> >
> >   
> >> We have a candidate here who is speaking during part of the telecon time 
> >> later today so i will miss some of the meeting.
> >> Thus, just in case the fragments discussion is not when i am on, i 
> >> wanted to post the things i care most about with respect to fragments.
> >>
> >> 1 - i would like to see backwards compatibility with OWL-Lite.
> >>     
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means.
> >   
> i thought this might come up in the telecon today.
> i just attempted to pick up the wording in the question list.
> my main issue with owl lite is that i do not think we should just drop 
> it and thus abandon people who are using it.
>  (I am fine with not actively doing things to promote future usage but i 
> do not think it is good to just drop it. )

Even if OWL Lite is not included in the ongoing list of OWL dialects,
how would people using it be abandoned?  OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL,
so any users of OWL Lite would be in the same situation as users of OWL
DL, as far as I tell.

>  I think that also precludes the thought of using the same name - owl 
> lite - but having it mean something different for owl 1.1 lite vs owl 
> 1.0 lite.

There is indeed a good argument not to change the meaning of OWL Lite.

> I believe in whatever fragment or conformance level(s) we promote we 
> will also want to have a short description about at least one class of 
> expected users for the new fragment/conformance level.  this may allow 
> current users of owl (1.0) lite see if they are in that class and if so, 
> then they may want to consider moving to the new fragment / conformance 
> level.

It does seem like it would be a good idea to have a description of the
intended audience for each fragment.

> deborah

peter
Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 15:37:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2008 15:37:12 GMT