W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Reopening issue 3.2 Qualified Restrictions

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Apr 2003 12:41:50 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1051033309.26515.100.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 10:01, Jim Hendler wrote:
> There is clearly enough interest in the group that we should reopen 
> this discussion.  As I stated before, the chairs' general position is 
> that post LC we should have a very high level of consensus before 
> making such a change, and also that we should aim for the minimum 
> change we can

The minimum change I can see is to figure out a better rationale
for striking them from DAML, now that the "there are no use
cases" bit isn't true any more. So one position is ala...

  PROPOSED: to close 3.2 by keeping qualified restrictions
  out of OWL because... maybe the value of adding it at
  this point in the schedule is outweighed by the slippage
  costs, the costs of explaining it, etc.
  (any change that will satisfy the commentor?)

If we're to change the design, I would like to see a pretty
complete proposal:

  PROPOSED: to address 3.2 by specifying a mechanism for
  qualified restrictions as follows:
   * ... proposed example for guide
   * ... test cases (if guide example isn't
	enough to catch some subtleties)
   * ... S&AS text, at least a sketch
   * ... text for reference, at least a sketch

further, as Jim says, a proposal for this change should
ideally either say...

  to schedule another last call review, perhaps starting DD MMM YYY
  thru DD MMM YYY


  to cite XYZ as evidence of wide review and consensus
  for this design.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 13:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC