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

Re: OWL working drafts - feedback sought

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:32:35 -0400
Message-Id: <p0511171db99bab2f61c8@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3c.org

At 1:02 PM +0100 9/4/02, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On September 1, Jim Hendler writes:
>>  As Mike Dean mentioned a few weeks back, we have released the first
>>  real langauge-based working drafts of the OWL langauge - successor to
>>  DAML+OIL.  We could use some feedback as to whether we are going in
>>  the right direction.  The document
>>      http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>>  is a short summary of the language and will show what has changed so
>>  far from DAML+OIL.  We would welcome feedback on the public mailing
>>  list (see below) if you have issues with any of changes or, in fact,
>>  if you think these changes are positive -- i.e. just a "this looks
>>  good" would be useful feedback
>>    We would particularly like feedback as to whether the naming of a
>>  subset (Owl Lite in these documents) is a good or bad idea.
>>    In addition, there are some who feel that stopping at OWL Lite would
>>  be a good idea (i.e. come out with a simpler version w/less
>>  inferential power, but easier to implement) - we need feedback on
>>  this as well
>
>Jim,
>
>I am really rather amazed to read the last sentence. The stated
>purpose of OWL Lite was to provide an easy entry for tool builders,
>and not an alternative to or replacement for the full language.
>
>If members of the WG believe that we should "stop at OWL Lite", then
>they should declare themselves and open an issue in the normal
>way. Currently, I see no such issue, and am not aware of such a
>suggestion even having been (openly) discussed.
>
>Ian
>
>
>>    thanks much
>>    Jim H
>  >   CoChair, Web Ontology Working Group

Ian-
   In our discussion of the compliance level issue there were indeed 
those who said we should have only one level and it should look a lot 
like Owl-lite (go read our archives) - at the time the chairs and the 
WG decided not to hold that specific discussion, however we ruled 
that it was within the scope of the OPEN issue 5.2 [1]  (Guus, if you 
remember differently, please correct me)
   That said, in this particular case, however, I was not referring to 
WG discussion, but to a comment received in our public comments list 
[2] which stated "Forget about OWL-Heavy (for now; maybe forever)" 
and for which I was soliciting feedback from the DAML community, who 
have been users of the DAML+OIL language and would be likely 
candidates to provide feedback on both sides of this issue, making it 
easier for us to have appropriate documentation of whichever decision 
we take when we move on to Candidate Recommendation.
  -Jim Hendler
p.s. In future, please be more careful about forwarding mail from 
limited distribution groups to public ones - no harm done in this 
case, but obviously there may be times when the author doesn't want 
to send to a public group.


[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Sep/0000.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, 4 September 2002 08:32:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT