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

Re: AS&S and WG consensus

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:48:28 -0600
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1043333308.20252.97.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 08:08, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

Neither Peter's position nor Jeremy's
position is (a) supported by WG decisions nor (b) in conflict
with WG positions.

I think there's a considerable amount of design work left to
the editors, subject to review by the group. Here we
are, in that review.

If one wanted to stand on process, one could trace this
particular bit of editorial discretion back to...

RESOLVED: to close the layering issue (5.3) as described in Consensus on
semantic layering, provided the 2 technical bits of work can be done.

ACTION Peter Patel-Schneider/Pat Hayes: draft OWL semantics, including
the "2 technical bits" [should also address issues 4.6, 5.9, 5.22]
  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Semantic

> 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.  

That's it? That's the extent to which you're prepared to negotiate?

Please take the time to discuss the issue with Jeremy on
technical grounds before you put the whole WG in the critical path.

Or... hmm... perhaps you were just trying to be clear about
your position as of the start of the telcon. That's fair enough.


> > - 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.

"thus"? What WG decision do you trace that to?

>   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.

Not so. Publication of a WD is not a decision by the WG about
any technical matter.

"This document incorporates decisions made thru approximately October
2002, and proposes design choices for a number of the remaining open
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-semantics-20021108/

The technical aspect in question is the editor's proposal
for dealing with issue 5.3 (among others). Editor's proposals
win by default, i.e. if nobody suggests changes. But in this
case, somebody has suggested a change, so the editor's
proposal has no more standing than the reviewer's position.

>   dataRange has been in the abstract
> syntax from the beginning.

Really? "dataRange" does not occur in

It was added by the editors, as far as I know.

>   The abstract syntax has also never had XML
> Literals.

Interesting point. I agree the burden is in Jeremy's court there.

As one of the WG members, I support the position he
elaborated Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:19:08 +0100

Please add it. If it's not clear how, please let us know as
soon as is feasible.

>   The exclusion of rdfs:comment, etc., was a consequence of the
> incorporation of the OWL semantics into the document,

a technical consequence? i.e. having rdfs:comment is in
technical conflict with the rest of the design somehow?

Or just an editorial consequence?

>  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.

But WG process has not completely determined any design for OWL.
Much of the gaps were filled in by the editors, as a matter
of course.

> > (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
> peter

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:49:02 UTC

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