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

Re: Action: Review of satisfaction of requirements

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:41:11 -0500
Message-ID: <3E144F87.26E7CBA5@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

The precise wording of the requirement is:

R5. Ontology metadata
It must be possible to provide meta-data for each ontology, such as
author, publish-date, etc. The language should provide a standard set of
common metadata properties. These properties may or may not be borrowed
from the Dublin Core element set.

The reason I say it is not satisfied is the second sentence: "The
language should provide a STANDARD SET ..." As it stands, OWL does not
provide a standard set, but people can use the Dublin Core if they
desire. The difference between this and R19 and R20 is that OWL builds
on top of XML. OWL does not build on top of the Dublin Core, but instead
by building on RDF has the ability to reuse it.

I think we could say we met the requirement if we simply removed the
second sentence. That is, change it to:

R5. Ontology metadata
It must be possible to provide meta-data for each ontology, such as
author, publish-date, etc. These properties may or may not be borrowed
from the Dublin Core element set.

Would this be satisfactory?

Jeff


Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 14:57, Jeff Heflin wrote:
> > I have reviewed the requirements from the Req Doc [1] with respect to
> > our current language. Most of the requirements are definitely satisfied,
> > however there is one that isn't and two that probably are (but I'd like
> > a second opinion).
> >
> > R5. Ontology metadata is not satisfied.
> 
> No?
> 
> >  It essentially requires specific
> > meta-data properties such as author, publish date, etc.
> 
> Which are already available in the dublin core.
> We satisfied R5 by integrating OWL into
> the Resource Description Framework in such a way
> that we get these properties for free.
> 
> >  I would have no
> > problem demoting this to an objective if the WG agrees.
> 
> No, I don't agree.
> 
> > The two probably supported are:
> >
> > R19. Supporting a character model
> >
> > and
> >
> > R20. Supporting a uniqueness of Unicode strings
> >
> > I think we get these for free with XML,
> 
> likewise we get R5 for free with RDF (and dublin core).
> 
> >  but would like to make sure we
> > didn't have something else in mind when we added them. If you feel they
> > are not currently supported, please let me know.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 09:41:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT