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

Re: OWL S&AS: Translation to RDF Graphs [agenda request]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:08:22 +0100
Message-ID: <3EF87776.90206@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org


I would be happy to ask the Jena team to estimate a time line before we 
have this functionality ... It's currently not really in our plan for Jena 
2.0 due out in August. We do have most of the bits and pieces. (e.g. a 
syntax checker, and an OWL Full system that gives *an* abstract view of an 
ontology, but not the one in S&AS).

The WG could then assess whether it is prepared to wait in CR in order to 
satisfy Dave.

I am imagining the WG is getting close to satisfying HP's objections on 
this issue. (Not having yet seen Peter disagreeing with my B1 B2 treatment, 
and so hopeful that we will be able to make that change)

Jeremy


Dan Connolly wrote:

> Dave didn't find our response satisfactory.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0068.html
> 
> Jim, Guus, pls consider
>   - finding more rationale for the status quo that we might
>   use to convince Beckett
>   "Maybe you do have multiple interoperable implementations of
>   the mapping from OWL's concrete syntax (RDF triples) to OWL's
>   abstract syntax and I am just unaware of them.  If that is
>   the case, then I would be more satisfied."
> 
>   - re-opening issue 5.26-OWLDLSyntax
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I guess we can add Beckett to the dissenters on issue 5.26.
> 
> Maybe this merits telcon time this week?
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 12:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT