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 09:58:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030123.095835.20272601.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: AS&S and WG consensus
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:41:55 -0500

> At 9:08 -0500 1/23/03, 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.
> >
> >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.
> I am confused, does this mean you are eliminating these or including 
> them in OWL Lite/DL?

These features have never been a part of OWL Lite or OWL DL so I'm not
eliminating them.  Jeremy had asked to include them, and I saw no reason
not to include rdfs:comment and rdfs:label, but saw reasons not to include
rdf:XMLLiteral, rdfs:seeAlso, and rdfs:isDefinedBy.

> If the former, then I think you are going against Charter and I'll be 
> forced to step in.  Essentially, unless I am misunderstanding (which 
> is possible), these features were allowed under DAML+OIL - and 
> they were used heavily in many of the ontologies created under DAML. 

They are all in OWL Full, of course.

> Thus, removing them is NOT at editor's discretion since that would be 
> a modification to D+O without consensus of the WG.

OWL Lite and OWL DL are the result of a long and tortuous process.  They
have differed in some aspects from DAML+OIL from the very beginning, as
this was necessary to meet the requirements placed on OWL Lite and OWL DL.

> If I am wrong, please explain -- I think Jeremy wins on this process 
> question unless I misunderstand.

I believe that you have indeed misunderstood.

> Jeremy, if Peter is right, then I suggest you do indeed raise the 
> issue.  Dropping these four constructs would be a major change and as 
> chair I'm willing to accept and open this issue, holding up release 
> of AS&S as LC until it is resolved.  (note: that other documents can 
> move to LC while we fix AS&S)

Again, there has been no dropping of these constructs.  They never have
been in OWL Lite or OWL DL.

>   -JH

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:58:45 UTC

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