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

Re: profiles and the rec track

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:06:48 -0500
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <010B3D0F-027C-422A-ABC1-DD9CFB801472@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

Bijan
   I will pass your email on -
   As far as charter, you yourself have said a number of times that it  
is up to the WG to decide what is rec track and what isn't - I think  
we've certainly met the charter requirements on the design of the  
profiles.  Yes, I have said at other times I'd like to see the  
deliverables rec track, and if it was a perfect world I'd still be  
arguing for the profiles, but as I said in the email that started this  
thread, this was a new realization for me, and took a lot of thought.

On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> 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.
>

"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, 27 January 2009 19:07:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 19:07:30 GMT