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

Re: AS&S and WG consensus

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:08:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030123.090820.29071877.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:17:11 +0100

> Peter:
> > I disagree.  I'm very happy that rdf:XMLLiteral is not in OWL Lite or OWL
> > DL.
> Peter:
> > I think that rdfs:seeAlso and
> > rdfs:isDefinedBy have no place in OWL Lite or OWL DL.
> I am increasingly concerned at the divergence between the OWL described in
> AS&S and the OWL created by due WG process.
> My understanding is that:
>   OWL is DAML+OIL as modified by WG resolution in our issue driven consensus
> process.

OK.  I should not have modified the mapping rules, and have now taken
rdfs:comment and rdfs:label out.  If you want any of them in, please raise
an issue.  

> My understanding is that:
> - our documents should reflect WG consensus and the OWL created by such
> consensus to the best of the editors' ability
> - non-last call WDs and editors' WDs may include substantive material that
> is the editors' own input that has not yet been confirmed through the WG
> process.
> - as we approach last call, my understanding is that editors have a
> responsibility to the WG to identify and notify the group of substantive
> differences between what the documents say and what the WG has decided.
> - a last call WD and candidate, proposed and full recommendations should
> correctly reflect WG consensus. Ensuring this is the case is primarily the
> editors' responsibility.

Agreed, and thus I have taken rdfs:comment and rdfs:label out.  Would you
like me to take out the other changes I just made? 

> In recent days there have been identified three substantive differences
> between OWL in AS&S and OWL as determined by the WG. This is sufficient to
> make me suspect that the editor has taken too much latitude and needs to
> carefully review the document and formally raise issues where he believes
> that the document does not reflect OWL as determined by the WG.
> The three differences are:
> - dataRange
> - exclusion of XML Literals from OWL DL
> - exclusion of rdfs:seeAlso and rdfs:isDefinedBy from OWL DL
> As far as I can tell none of these have been the topic, or subtopic, of any
> issue, 	or WG resolution. The first has had a small of amount of discussion.
> The other two not.
> I am happy to have a discussion on the first.
> I expect the other two divergences to be fixed, or for new issues to be
> raised which I will oppose.

I believe that the ball is in your court, as all three of these features
appear in an approved working draft.  dataRange has been in the abstract
syntax from the beginning.  The abstract syntax has also never had XML
Literals.  The exclusion of rdfs:comment, etc., was a consequence of the
incorporation of the OWL semantics into the document, as the list of
excluded URI references was found to be incomplete.

> I also expect a complete list of substantive divergences between AS&S and
> OWL as determined by WG process to be provided by the editors before we have
> a last call vote.
> (I realise that that requires judgement on the part of the editors).

I believe that the only substantive differences are in the augmentations of
what counts as an OWL DL RDF graph, most of which have been requested by you.

> If, during last call, or CR, or PR, substantive issues arise because of such
> procedural irregularities I will not hesitate to request a second last call.

Feel free.

> (These two might look like minor tweaks to Peter, however I cannot live with
> them).
> Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC