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

Re: ACTION-274: first draft

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:21:50 +0000
Message-Id: <5B02418B-7599-4787-93EF-451A1E557FA2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 29 Jan 2009, at 13:57, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Just immediate comments, there might be more. Sorry if some of  
> those are
> a bit vague...
> - I am a bit afraid that the response is too long. I cannot put my
> finger on it where exactly, but we should see if we could cut it.


> The
> current response may very well lead to a long and possibly endless
> discussion which would benefit nobody.

Well, I don't propose we get into such a debate. We'll send our  
response. If there is a reasonably actionable reply, we'll deal.

I could cut it to about two paragraphs.

> - I am not sure that 'personalizing' the comment is a good idea.

I don't think I did. But we do start these with first names :)

> The
> comment is signed by Jeremy in his capacity as TQ AC rep,


> so his
> presence on the group in its earlier self may not be appropriate.

That's just evidence that the group was not unduly domianted by  
people who didn't think like him.

> I am
> also not sure the referring to persons, like Stefan's, is appropriate.

Why not? Again, it's just specific concrete evidence that the working  
group and its members took extraordinary pains to mitigate the bias  
he's talking about. I feel very confident that Stefan would not  
object to my description :)

> - One specific comment in TQ text is:
> [[[
> Since almost all TopQuadrant's business uses both RDF and OWL together
> the implicit requirement in OWL 1.0 that OWL and RDF should work well
> together, remains a critical requirement for OWL2. We do not see this
> listed as a requirement, and believe that several of the new features
> added are in practice in conflict with this requirement.
> ]]]

There's a way in which this is a bit weird. New features and  
rationales is a differential justification, not a sum total one.  
There are plenty of requirements we didn't explicitly bring over.

In any case, I'd say something like "backwards compatibiilty" and  
"closer alignment between DL and Full". We definitely did both of those.

> I think we should first acknowledge that the current set of document
> needs a number of editorial improvements to make it clear that the
> relationship between OWL 2 and RDF is the same as for OWL 1 and RDF.

I'm not sure what's the point of that. But ok.

> We
> should also emphasize that the RDF Full semantics is in the making,
> although not yet in LC; however, when finished, it will have an equal
> weight to the direct semantics. The fact that RDF is _the_ exchange is
> also a fact worth emphasizing in this context.


> I actually believe that we should _not_ rush in sending this response
> back to TQ.

Hence the "preliminariness" of the draft. It's a big comment so we  
need to work on it a lot, over time.

> There is no reason to do so. The reason I am thinking is
> that, while working through the other comments, we might (hopefully we
> will!) take a number of resolutions that we can refer to (eg, in the
> area of RDF-OWL relationships).


> That could make the response more factual.

If there is some part of the response that is not factual, I would  
like to know. I took some pains to ensure that it was factual.

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 14:18:26 UTC

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