W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review "Changes Since December" document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:55:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090412.095508.133887224.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: sandro@w3.org, team-owl-chairs@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Review "Changes Since December" document
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:25:06 +0200

> Hi Peter,
> 
> just peeking into the document while on vacations... I think that one
> technical change is missing, namely the RDF version of property
> chains. This was as a response to one of Jeremy's LCC, and affected the
> RDF semantics, the mapping document, and the OWL RL profile.

>From http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call

The mapping of property chains into RDF in Mapping to RDF Graphs has
been adjusted to make it fit better with other RDF constructs (in
response to LCC 34b). 

>From http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_6 under Mapping to RDF Graphs

The mapping of property chains into RDF has been adjusted to make it fit
better with other RDF constructs. 

> Another note on the list of LCC-s which is also publicized by reference:
> I think we should either make it clear that answers that has been set as
> chased are considered to be closed by default. At first glance one sees
> a bunch of ACK_OK-s (with different colours:-) and the other cells which
> contains the chase times. We should note them as, say, OK BY TIMEOUT or
> something like that, and document the chasing mail on a different
> column.

I am unclear as to what extra impact that would have.  The document
currently is quite clear on the status of most of the LCCs.  What should
be done instead, I think, is to chase the few non-responses that haven't
been chased, and then to further work on the non-positive responses,
namely 21, 34, 45, and 66.

I believe that 21 is now handled by the recent additions to OWL RL.
Someone should write a response to Jos saying this.

34 is complicated, but the only negative part of the response is about
negative property assertions.

For 45 see below.

I don't understand the situation with respect to 66.

> I still saw one non-accepted entry there (45), what happened with that
> one? I think we did tell Marko that this is should be a member
> submission because is out of scope, I think that the table entry should
> be slightly different, too.

Well, this one is non-positive, and there was supposed to be a concerted
effort to contact the requestor and find out how to best handle his
concerns.  As far as I can tell, all that has happened is that an email
was send to him.

> Ivan

peter
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 13:55:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 12 April 2009 13:55:08 GMT