W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: WebOnt General Requirements Subgroup - Initial E-mail

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:58:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3C110361.34F94CF3@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
CC: ned.smith@intel.com, jeremy_carroll@hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, connolly@w3.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-archive@w3.org
Actually, I agree that scalability is a requirement for web ontology
langauge, I just didn't make it very clear in my previous message. What
I was trying to say was that from your requirement #1, I thought
scalability was the only one with impact on the language, while the
other three topics (reliability, availability, and performance) were
more system oriented. In fact, I believe we should make scalability one
of our requirements (of course with the realization that some
requirements may be in conflict with each other and we will have to
strike some balances in the eventual language).

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask for some clarification on how you
think some of the remaining points carry over. In particular, could you
explain how you would describe

- security management
- multi-user collaboration
- difference and merging

in terms of language requirements? Thanks!


Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> agreed that there was a slightly different slant to that paper but i think at least most
> (which you pointed out) and actually I would claim all of the points still carry over.
> you mention not scalability for a web ontology language.  i would dispute this - i think if
> the language can not scale, then we can not use it for representation on the web.   the thing
> i would agree with is that scalability is not a thrust of our work and is almost "motherhood
> and apple-pie" for any language  thus not worth making an issue of.
> i would add conceptual search to my list.
> d
> Jeff Heflin wrote:
> > Deborah,
> >
> > Thanks for the requirements. However, they raise an interesting
> > question. It appears that your requirements were specifically designed
> > for an ontology management system, but I believe we were charged to
> > develop requirements for a web ontology language. Clearly, there is some
> > overlap, but if our mission is the later, then perhaps not all of your
> > requirements apply. For example, I believe the following requirements
> > are too system-oriented:
> >
> > 1) reliability, availability and performance (but not scalability!)
> > 4) security management
> > 5) multi-user collaboration (I'm not sure how language design can impact
> > this, except for at the interoperability level)
> > 6) difference and merging
> >
> > I think the following can be cast (perhaps with a little rewriting) as
> > language requirements:
> > 1) scalability (but not reliability, availability, or performance)
> > 2) ease of use (user-friendly)
> > 3) extensible and flexible knowledge rep.
> > 7) XML interfaces (perhaps rename as XML syntax?)
> > 8) internationalization
> > 9) versioning
> >
> > Note that 1,2, and 9 are similar to requirements I mentioned in my
> > document.
> >
> > Of course, I'd like to hear the opinions of the rest of the group before
> > we proceed with merging the two sets of requirements that we have.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 12:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:03 UTC