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

WOWG ADMIN IMPORTANT: Issue list: cleanup of ISSUES 2.1-3.4

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:40:49 -0400
Message-Id: <p0511171ab91adcf53e6f@[10.0.1.4]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

A number of issues on our issue list [1] were raised during the 
production of our requirements document and may not directly relate 
to current status of our WG discussions.  I am trying to get these 
rewritten in the form of our other issues so that we can respond to 
them, In doing so, I think some of these issues either change status 
or need new writeups.  As soon as I can, I will send a separate email 
on each of the issues for which I propose so email discussion can 
proceed correctly, However, below is a summary of my proposals so you 
know what is coming and can provide immediate feedback if you think 
I've misunderstood something.  If you think I've misunderstood an 
issue, please let me know soon before I write it up.
  -JH
  p.s. Where it says "Close this issue" I'm proposing to own the issue 
and go through discussion at telecon - so none is closed by fiat - 
but I want to make sure I'm not rushing to close something that 
someone feels strongly about.

  Issue 2.1 URI naming of instances
   Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
   I think this issue was raised in the context of the requirements 
document and is not needed anymore.  Since we will have RDF 
documents, instances can have URIs.

Issue 2.2 - Adding properties to someone else's instances
    Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
   I think this issue was raised in the context of the requirements 
document and is not needed anymore.  Since we will have RDF 
documents, we cannot prevent people from being able to point at and 
claim things about other people's instances.

Issue 2.3 - Adding Properties to "someone else's" classes
  Leave as is

Issue 2.4 - Enumerated Classes (daml:oneOf)
   Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
   The issue here was that the requirements document didn't directly 
motivate this language feature.  However, no one has advocated its 
removal and it does seem to be used in examples within WG discussions.

Issue 2.5 - Closed Sets (daml:List, daml:Collection)
  Proposal - change status to OPEN
  This is an action in which members of our group are working w/RDF 
Core to reach a resolution, since it is open, we should call it so.

Issue 2.6 - Ordered Property Values
  Leave as is  (will eventually need better writeup)

Issue 3.1 - Local Restrictions
  Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
   The issue here was that the requirements document didn't motivate 
this language feature.  However, no one has advocated its removal and 
there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature.

Issue 3.2 - Qualified Restrictions
   Already closed, no change.

Issue 3.3 - daml:disjointFrom
  Frankly, I have no clue - there is no daml:disjointFrom in the 
DAML+OIL ref.  Can we remove this or someone explain the issue?

Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty
  Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
   The issue here was that the requirements document didn't motivate 
this language feature.  However, no one has advocated its removal and 
there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature.




http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html


-- 
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 Wednesday, 29 May 2002 18:41:28 GMT

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