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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:03:27 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f0fba5b84f550ef@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

As Dan pointed out, it is up to the chairs to rule on this.  I cannot 
speak for Guus, but frankly I'm of mixed-minds.  Jeremy is 100% 
correct that having our documents contradictory is a bad thing - if 
we don't fix that now, we will likely have to fix it later, at much 
greater cost (i.e. if we went to PR and then someone brought up the 
issue, we would have to go to LC again).  On the other hand, the 
proposed fix seems fairly drastic - as Ian has pointed out, and we 
did consider the issue of Lite semantics for a long time (and reached 
what seemed to be a comprommise).
    I'm wondering if there's not a simpler fix -- note that I am NOT 
reopening the issue, just expressing curiosity as to whether there is 
a consensus among the WG that we could open it and make a simple fix.
  Does anyone have any thoughts on this to help the chairs make a 
decision as to how we could resolve this document problem or whether 
we need to open the issue?

At 18:52 +0100 1/27/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>  > That's a reasonably clear abstract of what I'd like to see,
>>  but it suggests that our specs specify
>>	vocab: Dialect -> PowerSet(URI)
>>  such that
>>	owl:intersectionOf \in vocab(OWL Lite)
>>  would be well-defined. Guide/Overview/Reference
>>  are sorta written that way, but we've organized
>>  the documents so that they're informative; the
>>  normative material is in AS&S, but it doesn't
>>  define a vocab function like that (does it?).
>Your point is correct, there is no such simple mapping from a vocabulary to
>a sublanguage.
>Without the owl:intersectionOf blemish the difference between OWL Lite and
>OWL DL can be largely motivated by the additional vocabulary. I think for
>instance the guide would be harder to read and harder to write if it
>correctly reflected AS&S on this point.
>Since at the moment all our documents are informative "works in progress", I
>don't believe that the higher status that we have agreed to give to AS&S,
>when it is a recommendation, is particularly relevant to the discussion of
>what the consensus opinion is.
>I suspect that most of the WG understand Guide/Overview/Reference better
>than AS&S.
>Hence my belief that the majority position is that owl:intersectionOf is not
>in OWL Lite.
>(Again, I don't care - I would vote concur on the substantive issue).

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 Monday, 27 January 2003 20:03:35 UTC

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