RE: Formally addressing issue: rdf compatibility

It will be tonight until I can respond - I will take all this under advisement


At 18:45 +0100 2/25/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>I am only concerned about process:
>+ to the extent that there is inadequate discussion of the issues/issuettes;
>+ and should I need to formally object
>
>A test case is that the following document is in OWL Lite.
>
>[[
>rdf:Bag rdf:type owl:Class .
>rdf:_1 rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
>eg:a rdf:type rdf:Bag .
>eg:a rdf:_1 eg:b .
>eg:b rdf:type owl:Thing .
>]]
>
>I am currently dissatisfied with the chair ruling that the RDF compatibility
>stuff is an attempt to reopen the OWL Lite discussion - it isn't. If it
>were, I do not believe the Bristol decision on issue 5.2 had anything to do
>with  the use of RDF non-logical vocabulary items within OWL Lite.
>
>
>However I can imagine a response from the chair to which I would indicate
>that I was happy.
>That response is that the decision on 5.2 endorsed OWL Lite also including
>the RDF vocabulary permitted by the previously published abstract syntax
>document:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7
>viz the following are excluded:
>[[
>rdf:type, rdf:Property, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:domain,
>rdfs:range, owl:Class, owl:sameClassAs, owl:DisjointWith, owl:oneOf,
>owl:unionOf, owl:intersectionOf, owl:complementOf, owl:samePropertyAs,
>owl:inverseOf, owl:DatatypeProperty, owl:ObjectProperty,
>owl:SymmetricProperty, owl:UniqueProperty, owl:UnambiguousProperty,
>owl:TransitiveProperty, owl:Restriction, owl:onProperty, owl:toClass,
>owl:hasClass, owl:hasValue, owl:minCardinality, owl:maxCardinality,
>owl:cardinality, owl:sameIndividualAs, owl:differentIndividualFrom,
>owl:List, owl:first, owl:rest, owl:nil.
>]]
>rather than the wholesale exclusion found in the last published AS&S and the
>current editor's S&AS -  an exclusion that does not seem to reflect any WG
>decision.
>
>I have no need at this time to have the annotations issue added to the issue
>list, since I believe we are all but done on it; and similarly I currently
>expect an adequate resolution of the xml:lang and rdf:XMLLiteral issuette.
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
>>  Sent: 25 February 2003 18:17
>>  To: Jeremy Carroll
>>  Cc: Jim Hendler; www-archive@w3.org; Guus Schreiber
>>  Subject: Re: Formally addressing issue: rdf compatibility
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 03:16, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>  > I read in:
>>  >
>>  > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#last-call
>>  >
>>  > that
>>  > "Before advancing a technical report to Last Call Working
>>  Draft, the Working
>>  > Group must:
>>  >
>>  > ...
>>  > formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants, other
>>  > Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the
>>  Working Draft. "
>>  >
>>  > I note that I raised an issue rdf compatibility in the message:
>>  >
>>  > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0083.html
>>  >
>>  > I understand "formally address" to mean:
>>  > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#formal-address
>>  >
>>  > "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
>>  addressed an
>>  > issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence of having
>>  sent a response
>>  > to the party who raised the issue. This response should include
>>  the Working
>>  > Group's resolution and should ask the party who raised the
>>  issue to reply
>>  > with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the initial
>>  > objection."
>>  >
>>  > I hence ask for a response to my message raising the issue.
>>
>>  Just asking for an issue doesn't make it one. The WG has agreed
>>  that the chairs get to decide what's an issue and what's not.
>>
>>  Er.. oops, no, that's actually not the case. The chairs just
>>  get to decide when to open issues. hmm...
>>
>>  "Issues are submitted by members of the working group. Such issues are
>  > marked raised. The process for submission is described above.
>>    * The chair may open an issue, normally assigning an owner."
>>    -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
>>
>>  Jim, you/we need to go back over all the issue requests
>>  we didn't act on and get them added to the issues list. Sigh.
>>
>>
>>  > Jeremy
>>  --
>>  Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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 Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:19:57 UTC