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

Re: Discussion topics for OWL Full discussion

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:28:53 -0500
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F29648D-EA3C-4C45-AF14-31A6C24189DC@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

Sorry, some people took my email the wrong way - I've gotten several  
off line comments on it, so let me be clear -- I was not trying to be  
rhetorical or to make a point - I was actually asking if we were  
taking this seriously enough that we would consider it for real or  
whethet rhe talking point was rhetorical  I should obviously have  
asked more clearly, I was on the way out the door and didn't have time  
to think (I also didn't mean to cc the WG, but that's another story)
  So to be clear, I was not trying to be either obstructionist nor to  
be using this to try to shut off discussion - I think there is a real  
question as to whether DL and Full must be kept in lock step, and if  
the WG is willing to go that direction, I would support the  
rechartering to make it so!
  Hope that help and apologies for the unfortunate way the question  
came accross
  -JH



On Feb 4, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> Is the plan to do a rechartering request if we decide not to have an  
> OWL-Full language?
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>>
>> Here are some of the topics kindly put together by Michael  
>> Schneider, with some editing by Ian and I.
>>
>> == Desired Outcome ==
>>
>> * Is there consensus or not in the WG about developing or not  
>> developing an OWL-Full language?
>> * If OWL-Full is going to be created, then in which form, and by  
>> whom?
>>
>> == Topic 1: Motivation ==
>>
>> * What were the reasons for having a Full version in OWL 1.0?
>> * What is known about existing OWL-Full applications?
>> * Is 1.1-DL too restricted, and if so where/how?
>>
>> == Topic 2: Semantics ==
>>
>> * Do we want to follow Peter's suggestion? (Email: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0162.html 
>> >)
>> * Is compatibility an aim, and if so what would compatibility mean?
>> ** RDF(S) compatibility?
>> ** Backwards compatibility with OWL 1.0?
>> ** Compatibility with 1.1 DL?
>>
>> Incompatible changes?
>> * dropping "syntax reflection"?
>> * Skolem constants instead of existential variables?
>>
>> == Topic 3: Development ==
>>
>> * How do we make it happen (semantics and testcases in the first  
>> place, also sections in UFDs)
>> ** General approach (e.g. dedicated Full-TF needed?; Wiki based  
>> development? What should go to the WG's issues and actions lists,  
>> and what should be more "silent"?)
>> ** Who would have interest in participating, in which form?  
>> (creating the drafts; reviewing the drafts; writing Full related  
>> stuff in UFDs; ...)
>>
>> * schedule
>>
>> Speak to you Wednesday,
>>
>> Alan and Ian
>>
>>
>>
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 02:29:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 02:29:11 GMT