W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: owl lite starting to look like more trouble than it's worth

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:28:28 -0800
Message-ID: <3DF8C73C.55AAB405@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

I am just getting through email from early this morning like this after 1am.

Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On December 11, Deborah McGuinness writes:
> >
> > PLEASE do not reopen the OWL Lite issue again!!!
>
> That is rich! It wasn't Dan that reopened the OWL Lite issue - *YOU*
> did that by suggesting a substantive change to its specification.
>

This is just completely incorrect.
I responded to feedback on our public comments.  There was one theme on adding a particular
construct.
It was what I was requested to do from monitoring public comments and also what was requested
at the f2f.
At the same time at the f2f we agreed that it was supported puclicly to have OWL Lite and
that is a separate issue.

>
> > We have had continual requests for OWL Lite from people watching our work and that is
> > what Frank and I largely responded to in our efforts to get it out.
> > We have already had decisions to include it from as far back as the amsterdam face to
> > face.  Since it was not recorded officially in the minutes then we got an official
> > inclusion of the request and decision later.
> > A significant amount of work has gone into it and I believe and many of us believe it
> > is absolutely critical to the acceptance of some version of OWL.
>
> Then why sabotage it by turning it into the same thing as OWL DL?

adding one constructor does not turn it into owl dl.
take one particular issue for example - protege and some other systems would have issues
implementing unnamed classes.  that is not in OWL Lite and it is good for a number of systems
to keep that out of OWL Lite.
putting that in OWL Lite would cause more problems for some systems and would make OWL Lite
more like OWL DL from their perspective than adding hasValue.

>
>
> > After posting OWL Lite, we have had a number of public comments from industry stating
> > how important it was to have a OWL Lite for acceptance.  I summarized those comments in
> > the bristol f2f.
> >
> > OWL Lite is not putting the schedule at risk if either we leave it as it is or we add
> > hasValue with the existing semantics.
>
> How do you work that out?

the semantics is specified for option 2 - adding hasValue with the OWL DL semantics.

> Suggesting substantive changes to the
> specification at this late stage is bound to put the schedule at risk.
>
> Ian
>
> > The only thing that puts the schedule at risk is
> > adding new semantics.
> >
> > Deborah
> >
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > > Ugh!
> > >
> > > I'm trying to prepare for tomorrow's telcon,
> > > and I think it's a shame that so much energy
> > > is being spent on whether something is in
> > > OWL Lite or not, or whether OWL Lite has
> > > a different semantics or what-not.
> > >
> > > I'm tempted to use this as new information
> > > and ask to re-open issue 5.2 on the grounds
> > > that OWL Lite is putting our schedule at risk.
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels
> > >
> > > We really need to get into the mode
> > > of careful editorial review and running
> > > tools over the test suite, as Jeremy
> > > noted 6Dec
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0048.html
> > >
> > > Hmm... I thought I abstained on that decision; I must
> > > not have been paying attention...
> > >
> > > "RESOLVED: to close 5.2, endorsing existing an owl lite language subset
> > > and test class."
> > >  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Lite
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> >
> > --
> >  Deborah L. McGuinness
> >  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
> >  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
> >  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
> >  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
> >  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
> >  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
> >

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 12:29:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT