WebONT Requirements Document Changes ==================================== Accepted -------- 1. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] ACTION: Remove requirements from the individual use case sections. Update requirements and objectives to link to any use case that listed them. 2. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] ACTION: Add (with some editing) Leo's "What is an ontology" text from below to the requirements document. 3. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] ACTION: The editor's will tone down the hype a little bit, and be careful not to overstate what we hope WebOnt will be able to do. 4. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] You believe "speech act support" and "pre- and post- conditions" should not be objectives. These requirements were originally identified by the web services group, however there seemed to be minimal support for them. ACTION: We will remove these objectives from the document, unless one their proponents argues convincingly for them. Once again, the proponent should start a specific thread on the topic (preferably different threads for each objective). 5. [From JH, dated 16-Feb-2002] Provide movtivation for: local unique names aassumptions, ability to state closed worlds, cardinality constraints and layering of language features. 6. [From DC, dated 13-Feb-2002] Edits for the use cases. 7. Various typos suggested by the group: 7.1 [From PP-S via RV, dated 08-Feb-2002] Wording changes. 7.2 [From MS via JH, dated 08-Feb-2002] Typos. 7.3 [From DC, dated 08-Feb-2002] Wording changes. Rejected -------- 1. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] You take issue with "At a minimum, the language should recommend to users how they can specify their own default mechanisms." If I recall correctly, this was a resolution made by the group at a recent telecon after considerable debate on defaults. ACTION: The requirement [objective] will remain unchanged. Undecided --------- 1. [From PP-S, dated 08-Feb-2002] URIs for terms. [Various comments here spanning multiple emails; [From PP-S, dated 08-Feb-2002] Suggest using wording "URI+fragment"; see point 3.] 2. [From PP-S, dated 08-Feb-2002] Ontologies as resources. [Various comments here spanning multiple emails, which moved (unsucessfully) into RDF reification; no resolution.] 3. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] You had a problem with the "Referencing with URIs" requirement. In subsequent discussion with Dan, it appears that you would be happy if we change the wording to "URIs + frag[]ment ids." ACTION: Wording for the requirement will mention "frag[]ment ids." [Various comments here spanning multiple emails; no resolution] 4. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] We will demote "Ability to state closed worlds" to an objective. If anyone wishes to argue for it remaining a requirement, please do so. [[From PP-S, dated 15-Feb-2002] Suggest the following words: "Some documents contain definitive information about a particular set of facts, such as the membership of a class. When this is the case the language must be able to so specify."] 5. [From JH, dated 14-Feb-2002] You believe the "Properties for statements" requirement (sometimes called tagging) is too strong. This was a requirement that a number of participants have expressed good reasons for. If you believe it should be demoted to an objective, then please start a thread justifying this belief. ACTION: The requirement will remain unchanged (until further discussion). Completed --------- 1. [From OL, dated 17-Feb-2002] Ubiqutious Computing example.