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

Re: OWL working drafts - feedback sought

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 08:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020904.084015.103069246.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OWL working drafts - feedback sought
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:20:44 -0400 (EDT)

> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, 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
> I didn't read Jim's "there are some who feel" as referring only to the
> views of WG members. I've heard (largely in f2f discussions) this concern
> a number of times, and was glad to see Jim's request that folk with such
> worries put their concerns on the record.  Perhaps his last sentence is
> less shocking read in this light?
> Dan


I don't see how you can say this.  In my view, both of Jim's special
requests for feedback go far beyond what should be included in a request
for general feedback on a set of documents.

By the way, I would feel just as strongly if Jim had said something like:

	We would particularly like feedback on whether basing OWL on RDF is
	a good or bad idea.

One reason that such requests are a bad idea is that they bias the
feedback.  For example, how can anyone who believes that stopping at OWL
Lite is a good idea now use any feedback to bolster their position?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 08:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC