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

Re: WOWG: Status of non-closed issues

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:09:22 -0800
Message-ID: <3DBEB2B1.10A1DF94@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

thx for your listing.  it looks good.

there is also the issue concerning adding hasValue to OWL Lite  that i was asked
to raise as a result of the bristol meeting.
I sent mail on that issue in  in [1]

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0196.html

deborah

Jim Hendler wrote:

> All - in preparing for the end game, I want to check that we are in
> agreement as to where we stand on all the issues not yet closed - we
> want to make sure we'll get to all of them.
>
> Please take a minute to review the issues below, and
>   1) If you think I've got it wrong, please reply to this mail to the group
>   2) If you feel passionately about one of these issues, please let me
> and Guus know directly and/or reply to the group.
>
> ISSUES with a "*" need someone to make a proposal as to how to close.
>
> Issue 4.4 - extralogical feature set
>   Proposal by Hendler 10/29 to close with no change needed to OWL.
>
> Issue 4.6 - equivalentTo
>   Still open and to be discussed - depends in part on formalism issues
> (note that we will still need to decide the issue of whether we offer
> equivalentTo as well as the sameXXXAs constructions - as well as
> whether equivalentTO is limited to same "type")
>
> Issue 5.5 - List Syntax or Semantics
>    Now that RDF Core has a list construct, the question of what it
> looks like is resolved, but the issue of whether the semantics are in
> RDF or OWL remains.  I assume this will be dealt with in the
> formalism document
>
> Issue 5.6 - imports
>   this has been discussed, and we are working towards resolution.  I
> believe we have consensus on the desired behavior, but are struggling
> with how to write this up.
>
> Issue 5.7 - restricted ranges
>   Likely consensus to POSTPONE this issue, but waiting to hear from
> Ziv Hellman who raised it.  Email has been sent, if not replied to by
> time we need it, we'll postpone the issue
>
> Issue 5.8 - datatypes
>   I believe we have consensus to use the RDF solution.  We need to
> call this question.  If we do accept this, we need to decide if
> cardinality constraints will be expressed as datatypes or as numerals
>
> ** Issue 5.9 - malformed D+O restrictions
>   This is essentially subsumed by the semantic document - we need to
> take an action to either withdraw this issue or to declare it closed
> - PFPS is issue owner.
>
> ** Issue 5.13 - internet media type for OWL
>   Dan C has provided background document and there has been
> discussion.  Currently it appears that application/rdf+xml is
> sufficient, and that creating an application/owl media type would
> take extra work.  We need a proposal to close this issue.
>
> ** 5.14 - Ontology versioning
>   Jeff proposed a solution, it engendered much discussion, but we've
> not yet reached a concensus.  I believe there might be some consensus
> to go with his Backward-compatible and extends, while there is
> resistance to Deprecates.  Jeff proposed these as extra-logical
> restrictions (i.e. operational rather than formal semantics) minutes
> seem to reflect soem resistance on part of some of WG to this. We
> need a proposal to move this issue forward.
>
> Issue 5.17 - XML presentation syntax
>   Peter Patel-Schneider working on this as a document.  We should
> CLOSE this issue with resolution to produce the document.
>
> ** Issue 5.18 - Unique names assumption
>   We need a proposal to close this issue.  One possibility is to
> accept that the differentThan construct is good enough.  Another is
> to POSTPONE this issue and to demote the requirement to an objective.
> Alternatively, someone could propose a mechanism that the formal
> document could endorse - needs action.
> Deb McGuinness is issue owner.
>
> ** Issue 5.19 - Classes as Instances
>   We have resolved these are included in large owl.  Some discussion
> of whether they are allowed in Owl Lite.  Majority reflected
> willingness to leave out of OWL Lite, but some dissent.  Someone
> needs to suggest a specific action, or we should Close this issue
> with resolution that these are allowed in Large OWL (implying they
> are not part of Lite).
>
> [Issue 5.21 - drop disjointUnion
>   This was closed last week, issues list needs to be updated to reflect this]
>
> --
> 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

--
 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
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 11:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT