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

Re: Agenda and Logistics July 24 telecon -- CR vote expected

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:29:53 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f25bb44728a197b@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 8:30 AM +0100 7/23/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>and offlist:
>please let me/WG know if there is anything you think must be 
>discussed and decided  PRIOR to the CR vote
>I suggest that there are three things that we should consider ...
>The rationale for considering them prior to CR vote is that they 
>reflect unresolved issues (not necessarily in the formal sense), 
>that the WG is aware of.
>Response to RDF Core decision to remove rdf:type rdf:List triples.
>      Change OWL DL Syntax to permit blank nodes without an explicit 
>type, except for blank nodes corresponding to unnamed ontologies. 
>(All current production of such triples to be made optional).
>See [1] for proof of viability.
>      Change OWL DL syntax to make the rdf:type rdf:List triples optional.

I believe we could do these either before or after CR (under the 
criterion of coordinating w/RDF changes) - but will add to the agenda.

>The B.1 B.2 issue on restrictions on bnodes corresponding to descriptions.
>     to accept the changes B.1 B.2 [2] currently excluded from the 
>resolution  of OWL DL Syntax; permitting DAGs of such bnodes.
>See [3] for proof of viability.

This is actually a request to reopen 5.26 with the above as a new 
proposal to close - Jeremy is already on record as opposing the 
current solution.  If we were to do the above would you remove your 
objection to 5.26?

>Any LC comments for which:
>- we have no ack accepting our comment
>- and the commentor has not had seven/fourteen days to respond.
>(the choice of time period should be driven by the process doc).
>[I will ask Dave Reynolds to send a response to that last comment ASAP]

According to my spreadsheet there is only one such complete message - 
the one from the Jena team which Dave Reynolds has now answered and 
we will continue conversation on.

He has now answered as follows:

i. dataranges - he wants more info, I have asked Peter/Ian to respond 
- however I don't see why this isn't covered in our decision to 
Postpone issue 4.3 -- is there something new here?

ii. Individual bnodes - we already acknowledge in the CR draft that 
the Jena team agrees with your objection, so other than something 
that my result from your item (A) above, this has already been 
responded to.

iii. cycles of bnodes: he says our answer is acceptable

so the only thing pending (which I will put on agenda) is if we have 
anything to say about dataranges -- however, when I proposed 
something like this a while back (same issue, different syntax) the 
WG shot it down - so I'm not optimistic they'll want to add it -- and 
if this is not somehow different than issue 4.3, I would be reluctant 
to reopen the issue as no new information is offered.  I will admit 
that it is possible I'm just not understanding the issue - in which 
case I would ask Jeremy or someone to enlighten me (preferable in a 
new thread)


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	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 13:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC