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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:40:04 +0100
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

[This message is all about process, sorry. I'll reply to the substantive
parts of Ian's message separately. This message also replies to Peter's

> This is madness - surely you can't be suggesting that we re-open the
> discussion on OWL Lite *AGAIN*:

I have great sympathy for the point of view you expressed: frankly I don't
care too much either way (whether OWL Lite has complete classes or not)

What I do care about is that the documents we produced are consistent.
Currently they are not.

I have said on a number of occassions before the f2f that the Guide, the
Overview and the Reference are inconsistent [1], [2] , [3], [4] with the
AS&S on this issue - in that they clearly show owl:intersectionOf as only in
OWL DL, whereas AS&S shows it in OWL Lite.

Judging from the reluctance of the editors of those other documents to amend
the docs to reflect complete classes being in OWL Lite, I conclude that
despite the decisions we have made that there is no true consensus in the
WG. My proposal is aiming at helping the WG arrive at that consensus - if
that be by my proposal being well and truely thrown out then all well and

The earlier resolution that I am suggesting we amend was that "we endorsed
the existing OWL lite language subset". Unfortunately this was reflected in
different ways in the different documents and we endorsed a contradiction.

I would also support an opposing proposal that reopen the issue, clarified
that complete class are in OWL Lite as in AS&S, actioned the editors of
Guide, Reference and Overview to make appropriate amendments, and closed the

During the telecon, I was asked what my preferred resolution was, and I have
proposed that - but it is only a mild preference - I have a very strong
preference for consistency though.

> demand the re-opening of issues were they had formerly agreed to a
> compromise.

I agree, we should be re-opening issues where we have effectively
compromised - I don't care about this issue (honest) which is why it makes
sense for me to propose a clarification fix. I don't care which way it goes.
I proposed this way because I suspect more of the WG understood that
owl:intersectionOf was not in OWL Lite (and that it wasn't possible to
express unionOf and complementOf in OWL Lite) than those who understood that
complete classes were in OWL Lite.

In response to Peter:
> a proposal to significantly change important
> characteristics of the language.


>  Given this, and the lateness of the
> proposal, I believe that the bar for approval has to be set
> extremely high.

I think the fact that there is a contradiction in our documents all of which
can point to the issue resolution for support is sufficent to reopen it.

I believe an unresolved contradiction which has not been resolved two months
after I first raised it in the e-mail list crosses over the bar.

After that I don't care what happens other than we close it again pretty

I also note that we are only at a late stage in the process when our
documents reflect the WG consensus. This requires work by the working group,
the editors and the reviewers.

> Two questions as well:
> 1/ Why do you want this change?

To assist the editor's of contradictory documents resolve the contradition.

> 2/ Will this change achieve what you want?

Yes; as would a resolution that complete classes (and hence
owl:intersectionOf) are in OWL Lite.


Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 09:41:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC