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

F2F: The requirements vote

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:01:53 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101001b86b51fae38e@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At the f2f yesterday (Jan 15) we listed a number of proposed
requirements (defined as something that our language will support or 
we are not done) and "voted" with respect to whether we felt these 
were requirements we wanted in the language -- all these things are 
seen as potentially useful goals, but we were trying to winnow down 
those that are really key requirements.
  The list below are those that made it to the "finals" based on 
gathering use cases and boiling out requirements.  The scores 
represent votes as follows:
  A - more than half the group in favor, no one strongly opposed
  B - more than half the group in favor, one or two strongly opposed
  C - more than half in favor, a considerable minority opposed
  X - more than half opposed
  "-" - none of the above.

An action was taken by Jeff Heflin, Raphael Volz, and Jonathan Dale 
to edit the use case/requirements document.  They will edit the 
requirements, including more details of what each means, and how they 
are prioritized. 
  -Jim H.
   scribe for requirements vote

  B Define range contraints on data types
  - Definitional contraints of conjunctive type
  B- Relational Types
  B- Class as instance
  A Ontology namespaces/inter-ontology reference
  B Ontology mapping relations (equivalento)
  A Annotation/tagging of ontologies (some particular properties)
  B ontology partitioning
  A lexical representation (internationalization)
  C layered approach ^
  X multicultural mechanism (view)
  - arithmetic primitives
  C capability (chaining of properties, transitivity)
  X support for speech acts
  - support for variables
  - pre and post conditions
  X ability to integrate signatures
  - (procedural attachment)
  B- records (complex datatypes)
  C effective decision procedure
  X unique name assumption
  X bit efficient encoding
  A unambiguous term referencing using URIs
  B commitment to  ontologies
  C- commitment to portions of ontologies
  B solution to "tagging/grouping" problem
  A ontology management language features (versioning)
  B ability to state closed worlds
  A ability to state uniq. names
  A character set support
  A uniqueness of unicode strings
  - support for expressing work flow
  X defaults
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)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 13:19:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:41 UTC