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

Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:46:25 -0500
Cc: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <703705F6-B204-4A50-B252-8C1973AA4B01@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
   Feel free to read the process document [1] what confusion would  
there be with the process - the whole idea of WG and review includes  
deciding what to move forward and what not.  So I repeat I'd like to  
NOT move profiles to CR at this time.  Just as we currently are  
discussing publishing the Manchester syntax as a note, we could do the  
same for the Profiles.  Why in the world would that confuse people as  
to the process (esp. when the document is publicly available)
   I don't think the problem is with implementation in this case, I  
think it is with the confusion of releasing too much at the same time.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi

On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> Jim Hendler writes:
>>   Frankly, in practice I'm finding it extremely hard to explain why
>> three profiles are needed, and I would again propose that we consider
>> moving the other documents to CR, but hold back the profiles document
>> for further work on explanations and to avoid confusion that could
>> lead to less adoption of DL/Full, which still seems to me to be where
>> the most important OWL 2 extensions currently live.
> FWIW, I think it's easier (and more useful) to explain the difference
> between QL and RL [1] than the difference between CR and Rec [2].  It
> seems to me like this "hold back" strategy would leave people  
> (rightly)
> confused about W3C process instead of trying to understand the
> differences between the profiles.
>      -- Sandro
> [1] They are both ways to make queries of a database and have some OWL
>    inferencing done to give you additional query results.  With QL,  
> the
>    data is left as-is, and the queries are re-written to also return
>    OWL inferences.  With RL, the *queries* are left as-is, but a
>    process is run to add more data (the OWL inferences) to the
>    database.  The choice between the two depends on which inferences
>    you care about (some can only be implemented with one approach,  
> some
>    with the other), and the resource/performance demands of your
>    application.  [This is off the top of my head, trying to be clear
>    and simple.]
>    [After writing that, I (as a user) want a clear and simple table of
>    which OWL features are in each, making it easy to see which are in
>    both.   That doesn't have to come from OWL-WG.]
> [2] A "Candidate Recommendation" (CR) is a W3C specification that is
>    mature enough that people should try to implement it, but the W3C
>    has not yet determined whether it has been sufficiently implemented
>    to demonstrate that it *can* be implemented.  [This is off the  
> top of
>    my head, trying to be simple and clear.  Since I expect QL and RL  
> to
>    be easy to implement, I don't really see how they could  
> legitimately
>    be stuck in CR.]

"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, 17 February 2009 04:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC