- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:02:32 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
A TF may be the best way to organise ourselves. Jim is right in saying that anything done in any TF will need to be reviewed by the WG as a whole. Ian On 28 Feb 2008, at 15:45, Jim Hendler wrote: > In response to Carsten's concern about TFs, it was my understanding > early in the WG that anything done in a TF would need to be > reviewed by the whole group, and thus I was just suggesting a place > where those interested in how the fragments may be designed and > related to each other might like somewhere to talk - still in > public (i.e. logged calls) but without making those not concerned > with the details for now join. When the various frags are reported > back to the main group, I would expect much discussion - just as I > assume we'd discuss, for example, the so-called user-facing > documents before we would publish them. We could each go off and > design fragments separately and in little groups, but then there is > little visibility into the thought processes and interactions - my > hope is that we will find synergy between the diff fragments, if we > don't, it's going to be hard to explain them to the outside world > (and the W3C AC) in the end... > -JH > > > >> Carsten Lutz wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I would also be willing to be on such a task force. On the other >>> hand, I have serious doubts that it is a good idea to form a general >>> subgroup on fragments. In my view, fragments are an integral and >>> important part of the upcoming 1.1 spec. So if the WG decides to put >>> fragments on rec, it cannot just delegate the whole issue to a >>> subgroup. >>> >>> On the other hand, the WG should maybe not be bothered with all the >>> gory details of every single fragment. It thus makes perfect >>> sense to >>> install task forces for specific fragments. In particular, a task >>> force working on OWL Prime seems to be badly needed since many WG >>> members seem to only have a vague idea of what exactly OWL prime is >>> going to be. Similarly, DL Lite needs a task force to figure out >>> which >>> version exactly we want to have, and even EL++ needs some final >>> polishing (but I am not sure that we really need a task force >>> there). >>> >>> I would like to reiterate my point that we should invest efforts >>> to properly understand each fragment that we make rec. This does not >>> mean carrying out difficult research within the WG or a task force, >>> but the least it means is to check all expressive means in OWL 1.1 >>> as to whether or not they can *easily* be included in a fragment >>> without destroying its good behaviour. If there are no people >>> willing >>> to do this for a particular fragment, I'd take that as an indication >>> that it does not have sufficient support to become rec. >>> >>> greetings, >>> Carsten >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Jim Hendler wrote: >>>> >>>> Ahh, I thought you were asking for comments on the technical >>>> side of this, not about how to get the work done. I suggest we >>>> do it as a subgroup (task force) as we've done for the user- >>>> facing documents - I volunteer to be on such a task force and >>>> reiterate my offer, made since the beginning of the WG, to be >>>> one of the editors of the WG document(s) on this. >>>> -Jim H. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> As promised in today's teleconf, here again is the email I sent >>>>> last week with a view to starting a discussion on how to move >>>>> forward our work on fragments. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org >>>>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> >>>>>> Date: 22 February 2008 19:41:19 GMT >>>>>> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG <public-owl- >>>>>> wg@w3.org> >>>>>> Subject: Fragments >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to follow up on Wednesday's telecon discussion, and >>>>>> determine how best to operationalise our (very) provisional >>>>>> decisions on fragments. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I believe that we need is a new document that defines the >>>>>> (proposed) rec-track fragments. This document should define >>>>>> the syntax of the "scalable schema" (EL++ like) and "scalable >>>>>> data" (DL-Lite like) fragments, and the syntax and semantics >>>>>> of the "rules" fragment (DLP/OWL-Prime like). My understanding >>>>>> is that for the first two we only need syntax restrictions >>>>>> (the semantics are the same as for OWL 1.1 DL) and in the >>>>>> latter case we need syntax restrictions on the DL side (DLP) >>>>>> and a well defined semantics on the RDF side. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments? >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU >>> Dresden * >>> * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu- >>> dresden.de * >>> >> > > "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 Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:02:54 UTC