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

Re: profiles and the rec track

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:58:07 +0000
Message-Id: <FC7E5908-364B-41BB-89CB-DD379C57F8D6@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Jim,

I wasn't responding to your general arguments but to that point  
alone. I was just giving you some information for people made the  
comment about theoretical complexity and the behavior of these  
profiles. Regardless of what decision we make, we should be clear  
about the facts.

I'd be interested in what response that AC rep who made the comment  
about complexity would make if presented with these facts. It's  
unclear to me from your email whether that was a showstopper (but  
everything else was good) or a throwaway. Without knowing that, it's  
hard to judge what the problem is or the severity thereof and the  
proper response.

As I said, I'd be happy to discuss this privately with them. Feel  
free to forward my email.

As to your proposal (and arguments in support of them) I've not yet  
digested them or formulated a response. A prima facie point, of  
course, is that we sorta went through this debate on the charter and  
the AC endorsed the charter as is. Now, of course, there might be new  
information or new perspectives on the old information, but if it's  
just replaying the debate, I'm unclear, procedurally, how much weight  
to give it.

Since you are the one getting the messages, could you check to see if  
these are the same people who endorsed two groups before? Or is this  
a shift in opinion? The latter would be more significant, of course.

I understand the general "too much stuff" worry, but I'm not (yet)  
convinced.

My point about the Lilly comment was that it wasn't clear that she  
*was* talking about the profiles. They said OWL2 had too much stuff  
so that it was hard to find subsets to teach. But they also said that  
it seemed to be a result of research programs (citing profiles).  
These are in contradiction, to a large extent. So, it would be  
interesting to explain to Lilly the relationship between the profiles  
and OWL 2 and see if they still feel that way.

IOW, we're still at the data gathering stage, as far as I'm  
concerned.  More data is better.

(Note that we'd have to get a charter change in order to remove  
language fragments. As RPI AC, you  have before indicated that any  
deviation from the positive list of deliverables in the charter would  
meet with strong opposition:
	<http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables>
see:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/C76F33CF-12C5-4998-9F2E-F70068195F9A@cs.rpi.edu>
for an example.

It's easy to envision a member for whom Profiles are as important as  
UCRs are to you making exactly the same argument. So, I think we must  
take care.)

As I said, Manchester has no position at this time. Uli is away and I  
would need to discuss it with her.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 18:54:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 18:54:41 GMT