- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:43 -0500
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, ned.smith@intel.com
- CC: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-archive@w3.org
Here are my votes and comments on the candidate requirements. Note that in addition to the standard S(support), A(against), and U(undecided) notation, I've added S-X for "support in general but believe its out of scope of WebOnt." R1. Shared ontologies S R2. Ontology extension S R3. Ontology evolution S R4. Ontology interoperability S but only to a reasonable extent. some features may sacrifice scalability R5. Inconsistency S R6. Scalability S R7. Ease of Use S R8. Data Persistence U Although I originally proposed this one, I'm not positive if I support it enough to champion it. R9. Security S-X I think this deals with issues at layers above and below WebOnt R10. XML Syntax S R11. Internationalization S-X I think the issues that are in scope are covered by R4 and support a mention of it under that requirement R12. Ontology-based search U I'm still not sure we have a group consenus on what this means, and until we do, I'm undecided. R13. Ontology querying U same reason as for R12 R14. Expressiveness S R15. Proof checking U Although this is the thing TBL always brings up, I'm still not convinced that it is requirement, or even a requirement for some layer after WebOnt. R16. Trust S-X I believe trust is essential, but I also believe it is cutting edge research and out of scope.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 15:56:49 UTC