W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > April 2003

[closed] Re: Several Documents moved to Last Call

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:32:49 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f4dbab13f5c5609@[10.0.1.4]>
To: public-webont-comments@w3.org

The [closed] tag will remove this message from showing up as an open 
issue.  Feel free to ignore this message if you are not an automatic 
mail archiving tool.



At 13:19 -0500 4/2/03, Jim Hendler wrote:
>The Web Ontology WG is pleased to announce the publication of five 
>last call WD's for the OWL Web Ontology Language.  Our WG has made 
>its best effort to address all comments received to date, and we 
>seek confirmation that the comments have been addressed to the 
>satisfaction of the community, allowing us to move forward as a 
>Proposed Recommendation following the Last Call process.
>
>The following are our Working Drafts in Last Call:
>* OWL Web Ontology Language Overview
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/
>* OWL Web Ontology Language Reference
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/
>* OWL Web Ontology Language Guide
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/
>* OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
>* Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webont-req-20030331/
>
>1.0 General Information
>
>Comments should be sent to public-webont-comments@w3.org.  Comments 
>are due by 9 May, 2003.
>
>Patent disclosures (if there were any) would be found at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/discl.html
>
>The decision to advance these documents to last call is recorded in
>   WOWG Telecon Minutes, 27 March 2003:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0273.html
>
>2.0 Feedback from Other Working Groups
>
>The WebOnt WG seeks feedback from all, but in particular requests 
>such feedback as can be accomplished in the time alloted from the 
>following groups:
>
>W3C Groups identified in our charter:
>	RDF Core
>Other W3C Working Groups
>	i18n
>	RDFIG
>	RDF-Logic community
>	XML Schema
>	Web Services Choreography
>	Web Services Architecture
>	Web Services Description
>Non-W3C Groups:
>  	DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program
>  	Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group
>  	OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group
>
>Appended below this message is a short description of the particular 
>feedback we seek from each of these groups.
>
>3.0 Issues and Dissent
>
>Our issues list can be found at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
>It itemizes the disposition of all the major issues considered by the WG.
>
>3.1 Objections
>
>As per W3C process the WG would like to draw attention to the 
>following formal objections against these WD's:
>
>   o Issue 5.6 "Daml:imports as magic Syntax"  (Objecting: J. 
>Hendler, MIND Lab;
>                                                   Dan Connolly), W3C
>     Issue discussion:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax
>     Objection by Hendler:
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0281.html
>
>   o Issue 5.26: "OWL DL Syntax" (Objecting: J. Carroll, Hewlett Packard)
>     Issue Discussion: 
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax
>     Objection by Carroll:
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0264.html
>
>  Jim Hendler and Guus Schreiber
>  WebOnt co-chairs
>
>==========================================
>ADDENDUM: Specific feedback sought from other groups:
>
>
>RDF Core:  Review of all documents, particularly reference and 
>Semantics, with respect to design and compatibility with RDF.
>
>i18n: Internationalization is specified as a Goal in our Use Cases 
>and Requirements document.  Do our requirements meet that goal, and 
>does our langauge design meet our requirements.
>
>RDF Interest Group: General feedback on all of the documents, 
>specifically on issue of implementation and compatibility with RDF.
>
>RDF-Logic community (Subgroup of RDF IG): Feedback on choices with 
>respect to logical design, limitations of Lite and DL, and the 
>formal model theory.
>
>Semantic Web Advanced Development: The SWAD projects participates in 
>the DARPA Agent Markup Language program and has been developing 
>Semantic Web applications based on DAML+OIL (among other projects). 
>We seek confirmation that our design is consistent with the 
>experience and tools developed in SWAD.
>
>XML Schema: Our handling of xsd: datatypes is based on the XML 
>Schema Datatypes design and its limitations (with repect to URI 
>naming of user-enumerated datatypes).  We seek confirmation that our 
>design is consistent with current XSD and also if there may be 
>forthcoming changes to XSD URI naming or other issues that we should 
>be aware of.
>
>Web Services Choreography; Compatibility with the Semantic Web 
>Activity is specified in the WSC WG charter.  We have identified Web 
>Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable 
>use case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements 
>satisfy the needs of the WSC WG.
>
>Web Services Architecture: We have identified Web Services in our 
>Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we 
>request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of 
>the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
>
>Web Services Description; Compatibility with RDF languages is 
>specified in the WSD WG charter.  We have identified Web Services in 
>our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and 
>we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of 
>the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
>
>DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program: DAML+OIL was the primary 
>input to our langauge (per charter) and we seek feedback from the 
>DAML community as to our design and the implementability thereof.
>
>Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group: 
>FIPA has identified ontologies as an important work area.  We seek 
>feedback as to whether our langauge design provides a proper basis 
>for FIPA's development needs.
>
>OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group: OMG has identified 
>ontologies as an important work area.  We seek feedback as to 
>whether our langauge design provides a proper basis for OMG's 
>development needs.
>
>
>--
>Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
>Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
>http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 20:32:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:27 GMT