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

Re: AS&S and WG consensus

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:26:02 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f3fba561bf19bd5@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Peter - your message explained - I thought we were talking about "in 
OWL" as opposed to "in OWL Lite/DL" because I misunderstood Jeremy's 
original message - if I'd spent more time thinking I'd of realized 
that is what you meant - apologies.  (Dan C - this explains why you 
were confused - I thought we were talking "change DAML+OIL" which 
requires an affirmative WG action)


At 9:58 -0500 1/23/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>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

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 17:26:08 UTC

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