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

Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:47:34 -0500
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020213134734X.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of      longer version of layering document)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:26:28 -0500

> At 12:54 PM -0500 2/13/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
> >Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: 
> >status of     longer version of layering document)
> >Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:39:03 -0500
> >
> >>  Frank - the problem is that 1-4 as you define them below are
> >>  APPROACHES, not yet proposed solutions to move on.  I mean we need to
> >>  figure out how we operationalize these approaches and move to
> >>  language features that support them.
> >
> >Well, I believe that there already are proposed solutions using approaches
> >2, 3, and 4.
> >
> >Approach	Proposal
> >
> >2.Syntax and semantic extension
> >
> >OWL - 
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text
> >
> >3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics
> >
> >DAML+OIL - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference
> >
> >4.Differing syntax and semantics
> >
> >OWL' - 
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol.text
> 
> (Bad URI, please check)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol-xml-rdf.text

> 
> >What more do you want before having a discussion of which approach to work
> >with?
> 
> The only one of these currently in a form the WG could actually take 
> action is the 2nd, since it is in the form we need to get to and the 
> charter says we should use it as a point of departute.  The others 
> are still primarily in the form of theoretical contributions, and 
> would need work to become actual langauge standards, which is what we 
> are producing -- i.e. they need to come out like the second.  These 
> are good places to start discussion, but they aren't completed and 
> need work - all I'm trying to work out.

Well, yes, of course they are not finished specification.  Are you stating that
we need finished language specifications before we determine which approach
we are going to take?  That would be ridiculous!

I maintain that there is sufficient technical information in the OWL and
OWL' proposals to show how approaches 2 and 4 could play out.

> >You may note that each of these approaches have (roughly) the same language
> >features.  In general, the characteristics of the language do *not* depend
> >on which approach is taken.  (Of course, the syntax details of the language
> >and the formal specification of the language *do* depend on which approach
> >is taken, but both of these can be largely ignored when discussing which
> >approach to take.)
> >
> >>  It is fine and good for the group to decide "We will have a XXX
> >>  syntax and YYY semantic extension" (or whatever), but that doesn't
> >>  say which things will be the same or different from current DAML+OIL
> >>  or why.  We clearly need to set philosophy as part of moving ahead,
> >>  but the "task force" I suggested yesterday will need to go through
> >>  D+O figuring out how we change it, if at all, to deal with the issues
> >>  we've been discussing -- I'm trying to be hard-nosed here and remind
> >>  everyone that we need to eventually get this all the way to language
> >  > features.
> >>
> >>    To date, I see nothing that specific on the table, and we need such.
> >
> >Well, if the two documents I put together were not specific, then I don't
> >know what you want.
> 
> ahh, i see the problem from the above -- the SYNTAX details are 
> critical to the W3C standard we are trying to work out - they're not 
> a minor detail to leave up to the implementors.

Well of course, but why in the world would we want to iron out all the
possible syntax details before even determining the general approach to
use?

[...]

> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
[...]

So, to reiterate, what is missing from the OWL and OWL' proposals that
makes them unsuitable as examples of approaches 2 and 4?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 13:49:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT