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

Re: update to the compliance document

From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:55:09 +0100
Message-Id: <p05100300b91aed659b6d@[137.108.24.215]>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, Webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Deborah,

Just one minor comment.  The document does not explicitly say whether 
subclassOf hierarchies can have cycles (like daml+oil) or not (like 
rdfs).  Because subclassOf properties are listed under Rdfs features, 
one would think that no cycles are allowed, while the presence of 
sameClassAs in the language leads one to think that cycles are OK.

I guess the latter is the correct interpretation, but I can't 
remember this issue being discussed and I guess one could argue that 
cycles make implementations more complicated (actually, I don't 
really think this is the case, I am simply arguing both ways).

Any views?


Enrico

At 2:53 am -0700 26/5/02, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>I have made an update to the compliance document.
>
>1 - I have not changed the name but will be happy to if we like owl lite
>or something else better.
>
>2 - I attempted to take feedback provided and incorporate the
>non-contentious stuff.
>
>3 - I attempted to take the contentious topics with broad interest -
>namely local range restrictions, cardinality, and presentation style and
>include my proposal.
>
>Note - I did NOT check this with the people who offered to help on this
>document, so dont blame them- I deserve the flames.
>
>Ultimately I needed to balance the input and I felt that more sentiment
>had come in that
>this was too restrictive in that it would not meet the needs of too many
>applications that
>were the prime kinds of applications that needed more than RDF/S.
>Thus, some would say that I went too far and violated the goal of
>staying quite simple.
>Some would say I didnt add enough.
>
>Bottom line - I included local range restrictions (global and
>existential) and cardinality.
>My solution to the issues with presentation is to get this document out
>(wordsmithing as necessary if people do not think I have adequately
>characterized the limitations we need to live within for RDF)
>and then also write a presentation of the language as a limited form of
>the full language.
>I will do that next once we have agreement that at least no one is so
>offended by this proposal that they need to quit the webont effort.
>Hopefully we will have more agreement than that, but if that is all that
>can be achieved, then I will take that.
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>the document is in the same place:
>http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/compliance.html
>
>thanks for all the great feedback to date.
>
>Deborah
>--
>  Deborah L. McGuinness
>  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
>  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
>  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
>  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
>  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)
>801 705 0941


-- 
Enrico Motta, PhD                   
Director, Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
United Kingdom

URL: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/motta
Tel: +44 1908 653506
Fax: +44 1908 653169
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 16:56:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT