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

Re: F2F: The requirements vote

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:39:53 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101013b86e45da2c34@[172.16.201.95]>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 2:42 PM +0100 1/19/02, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>Enrico Motta wrote:
>>
>>  Jim,
>>
>>  for those of us who were not at the meeting, can you provide some
>>  additional clarification on teh requirement spec for OWL.  I guess 
>>the proposed
>>  requirements are to be interpreted as additional requirements on 
>>top of what daml+oil
>>  already provides.  is this correct? And I guess I should also 
>>infer that what is not
>>  currently in daml+oil and is not listed below is not going to be 
>>in OWL.  Is this is
>>  also a correct inference?
>
>I would like to have it stated clearly on this public mailing list 
>that the straw poll that Jim reported on was really just that, a 
>straw poll. I think this is what Jim meant when he wrote "vote" in 
>emphatic quotes.
>
>As an exercise during the meeting, we tried to prioritise the 
>requirements by collecting rough "votes" in favour or against each 
>of these requirements, but it was stated explicitly that this was an 
>informal poll. It would be very undesirable if the results of the 
>straw poll were now interpreted as a "final and definitive vote on 
>the requirements for OWL". Because of the time pressure of the 
>discussion, many requirements on the list remained unclear to many 
>of those present (including myself).
>
>So please, go ahead, and interpret the list as a rough first prioritisation,
>but please don't interpret it as a definitive vote.
>
>If anybody present at the meeting disagrees with this,
>please let them state so now.
>
>Frank.
>    ---

Frank put this well - also, it was pointed out that an "X" could also 
mean that something simply got a lot of head-scratching and thus it 
doesn't necessarily represent a strong negative

All of these were meant as fodder and information to the group 
writing the reqs doc, and I'm sure they'd be happy for your input.

As far as whether these votes had anything to do with whether the 
feature was already in DAML+OIL, the answer is no -- we were not 
taking that into account as a specific reason to list, or not list, a 
requirement.

We have asked a small group to go through the D+O document and 
prepare a list of which of our reqs were covered by D+O and which 
were not (and some may be "sort of") - details forthcoming

-- 
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
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 16:40:28 GMT

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