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

Re: WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:13:12 -0400
Message-Id: <p05111706b95dcea88f13@[10.0.1.4]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 9:32 AM -0400 7/19/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement
>Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:10:37 -0400
>
>>  At 1:39 PM -0500 7/18/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>  >
>>  >OWL is only interesting inasmuch as, when making new RDF vocabularies
>>  >(or refining descriptions of old ones),
>>  >widespread deployment of OWL allows me to use owl terms to constrain
>>  >the meanings of the terms in my RDF vocabulary in such a way that
>>  >lots of other folks will understand those constraints.
>>
>>  At 7:16 AM -0400 7/19/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>  >In response to Dan's statement on his view of OWL, here is my view on RDF.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Chair-neutrality very much ON
>>                              --
>>
>>  Gentlemen - may I remind you both that the working group spent a
>>  great deal of time discussing this issue early in its existence, it
>>  reached a number of resolutions at the Amsterdam face to face on this
>>  issue, and has been proceeding quite well based on those resolutions.
>>  Whether you think we are too vested in RDF, or not enough vested, is
>>  immaterial -- we reached our decisions and should live with them.
>>
>>  I see no reason to revisit or reopen any of those resolutions at this
>>  time, and urge you to have this important discussion on rdf-logic or
>>  other venue, but please not where it takes time from the complex work
>>  ahead still facing our WG.
>
>I agree that revisiting resolutions is problematic in general.  However, I
>am having a hard time seeing how the resolutions reached in Amsterdam
>relate to issue 5.10.  I feel that no significant progress will be made on
>issue 5.10 without some background discussion like Dan and I just had. 
>
>>  thanks much
>>    Jim H.
>
>peter

Issue 5.10 is OPEN, and if you confine your discussion to that issue 
I am happy to have it here.  Discussion of whether OWL should or 
should not be in RDF does not seem to me to be the point of issue 
5.10 and I would like that discussion not to occur here.  Hope that 
helps clarify my "ruling"
  -JH

-- 
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)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 10:13:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT