RE: possible issues

My current belief is that this would capture it - I was reviewing the
requirements doc and note that the statements about statements requirement
is only met in OWL Full - I am happy with that but if we are back to the
issue phase you would be wise to prompt (Mike?) whoever wanted this as to
whether they feel the requirement is met (in OWL Full). (Like we have done
for some of our other requirements).


Jeremy





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> Sent: 26 January 2003 23:17
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: www-archive@w3.org; Guus Schreiber; Dan Connolly
> Subject: Re: possible issues
>
>
> Jeremy -I think youu are right that some things need to be dealt with
> as issues, and these three seem significant enough to deal with.  Do
> you think that these three will be it, or are they just examples and
> you think there may be many more (I'd love the first of these to be
> the correct answer :->)
>
> At 23:03 +0100 1/26/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >Hi Jim,
> >
> >I think we should be handling these as issues - we've practiced
> that bit now -
> >I don't have much faith in me and Peter trying to resolve our
> differences on
> >our own.
> >
> >This is what some issues might look like ...
> >
> >Peter also silently removed xml:lang from OWL Lite.
> >(or forget to put it in ...)
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >==========================
> >
> >TITLE: rdf:XMLLiteral, xml:lang in OWL Lite
> >
> >DESCRIPTION:
> >AS&S does not permit these features in OWL Lite.
> >These features are critical for I18N; and needed for
> >addressing multilingual labels as seen in requirement
> >[R16/R18 User-displayable labels].
> >and for including marked up text, such as needed for
> >accessability, ruby annotation, or bidirectional text.
> >There omission also needlessly hampers interoperability
> >between OWL Lite, OWL DL and RDF.
> >
> >
> >RAISED BY:Carroll
> >REFERENCE
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#req-user-labels
> >
> >===
> >
> >TITLE design trade-offs in syntax of OWL DL
> >
> >DESCRIPTION:
> >any matching of RDF triples with a DL view is going to have some ugliness
> >somewhere. The current AS&S design has prioritised a clean
> abstract syntax
> >and allowed the concrete exchanged syntax to be very difficult
> to describe,
> >test, implement or understand.
> >An alternative emphasis in the design on a clean
> characterization of OWL DL in
> >RDF graphs, should be explored. This will put some of the ugliness in the
> >mismatch into the abstract syntax,
> >
> >RAISED BY: Carroll
> >REFERENCE:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0360.html
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/att-0356/01-jjc
> >
> >===
> >
> >TITLE: annotations
> >
> >DESCRIPTION:
> >The annotations permitted in AS&S are:
> >- not particularly clear quite what is and is not permitted
> >- appear to have some arbitrary exclusions of certains rdfs properties
> >- break semantic layering
> >- appear to permit user defined annotations, without providing
> any mechanism
> >for defining them
> >
> >This issue is to resolve the syntax and semantics of annotations
> and their
> >interaction with the rest of the ontology (if any).
> >
> >RAISED BY: Carroll
> >
> >REFERENCE:
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#req-user-labels
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0475.html
>
>
> --
> 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 Monday, 27 January 2003 09:41:21 UTC