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

Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:06:04 -0500
Message-ID: <3C73E58C.E191CD81@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
> Subject: Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:58:32 -0500
> 
> >
> > Would a statement to the effect that "the Working Group reserves the
> > right to remove or add requirements" help?
> 
> Not really.  Wording in the introduction, and elsewhere in the document,
> has the effect of making the document read like ``revealed truth''.  I
> would very much like the document not to carry this sort of connotation.

I am not really sure which part of the documents connote "revealed
truth." I am currently revising the introduction to tone down the hype,
and hope that this will partially address your concerns. If you could
point out sections that you find particularly objectionable and suggest
alternate wording, that may be the quickest way to fix this issue.

> 
> > > 4/ Many of the objectives are not adequately defined.
> > >
> > >    a) Chained properties
> > >       Where and when are chained properties allowed?
> > >    b) Variables
> > >       What do variables mean?  Where can they occur?  What power should
> > >       they provide?
> > >    c) Arithmetic primitives
> > >       What sort of primitives?  Where can they occur?
> > >    d) String manipulation
> > >       See above.
> > >    e) Pre- and post- conditions
> > >       What do these mean?  Do they require that OWL incorporate a theory of
> > >       time and action?
> >
> > I'm not sure if we can provide the kind of details you ask for at this
> > time. Where these things can occur depends on the structure of the
> > language that we end up with. A lot of these would be more appropriate
> > for a rule-based language than a description logic. Of course, if anyone
> > would like to provide a more detailed description of one or more of
> > these, please be my guest.
> 
> I would be satisified if there was some mention that these objectives are
> not yet adequately defined and their continued status as objectives depend
> on their proponents providing such definition as well as motivation for the
> defined objectives.

That seems like a reasonable request. I'll add it to my list of action
items.
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 13:07:22 GMT

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