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

Re: Fragments

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:02:32 +0000
Message-Id: <743ADEB1-7842-4C60-B078-7B2BF166CFAD@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 February 2008 16:02:55 GMT