W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

FW: OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents -- request for reviews

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:49:19 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E40558F2C6@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


WSA is specifically mentioned as a desireable group from which they would
like comments:

"Web Services Architecture: We have identified Web Services in our Use 
Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we 
request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the 
WSA WG and if we have met those needs."

Likewise, the Semantic Web representative on the WS Coordination group
telcon today stressed how much they would like to hear from the Web services
community on this.  So, anyone out there (Frank and Katia come to mind!) who
"grok" OWL and would care to comment from a Web services perspective, your
opinion is very welcome.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:43 PM
To: chairs@w3.org
Subject: OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents -- request for
reviews



The Web Ontology WG is pleased to announce the publication of five 
last call WD's for the OWL Web Ontology Language.  Our WG has made 
its best effort to address all comments received to date, and we seek 
confirmation that the comments have been addressed to the 
satisfaction of the community, allowing us to move forward as a 
Proposed Recommendation following the Last Call process.

The following are our Working Drafts in Last Call:
* OWL Web Ontology Language Overview
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Reference
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Guide
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
* Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webont-req-20030331/

1.0 General Information

Comments should be sent to public-webont-comments@w3.org.  Comments 
are due by 9 May, 2003.

Patent disclosures (if there were any) would be found at:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/discl.html

The decision to advance these documents to last call is recorded in
   WOWG Telecon Minutes, 27 March 2003:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0273.html

2.0 Feedback from Other Working Groups

The WebOnt WG seeks feedback from all, but in particular requests 
such feedback as can be accomplished in the time alloted from the 
following groups:

W3C Groups identified in our charter:
	RDF Core
Other W3C Working Groups
	i18n
	RDFIG
	RDF-Logic community
	XML Schema
	Web Services Choreography
	Web Services Architecture
	Web Services Description
Non-W3C Groups:
  	DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program
  	Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group
  	OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group

Appended below this message is a short description of the particular 
feedback we seek from each of these groups.

3.0 Issues and Dissent

Our issues list can be found at:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
It itemizes the disposition of all the major issues considered by the WG.

3.1 Objections

As per W3C process the WG would like to draw attention to the 
following formal objections against these WD's:

   o Issue 5.6 "Daml:imports as magic Syntax"  (Objecting: J. Hendler, MIND
Lab;
                                                   Dan Connolly), W3C
     Issue discussion:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-mag
ic-syntax
     Objection by Hendler:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0281.html

   o Issue 5.26: "OWL DL Syntax" (Objecting: J. Carroll, Hewlett Packard)
     Issue Discussion: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax
     Objection by Carroll:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0264.html

  Jim Hendler and Guus Schreiber
  WebOnt co-chairs

==========================================
ADDENDUM: Specific feedback sought from other groups:


RDF Core:  Review of all documents, particularly reference and 
Semantics, with respect to design and compatibility with RDF.

i18n: Internationalization is specified as a Goal in our Use Cases 
and Requirements document.  Do our requirements meet that goal, and 
does our langauge design meet our requirements.

RDF Interest Group: General feedback on all of the documents, 
specifically on issue of implementation and compatibility with RDF.

RDF-Logic community (Subgroup of RDF IG): Feedback on choices with 
respect to logical design, limitations of Lite and DL, and the formal 
model theory.

Semantic Web Advanced Development: The SWAD projects participates in 
the DARPA Agent Markup Language program and has been developing 
Semantic Web applications based on DAML+OIL (among other projects). 
We seek confirmation that our design is consistent with the 
experience and tools developed in SWAD.

XML Schema: Our handling of xsd: datatypes is based on the XML Schema 
Datatypes design and its limitations (with repect to URI naming of 
user-enumerated datatypes).  We seek confirmation that our design is 
consistent with current XSD and also if there may be forthcoming 
changes to XSD URI naming or other issues that we should be aware of.

Web Services Choreography; Compatibility with the Semantic Web 
Activity is specified in the WSC WG charter.  We have identified Web 
Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use 
case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the 
needs of the WSC WG.

Web Services Architecture: We have identified Web Services in our Use 
Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we 
request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the 
WSA WG and if we have met those needs.

Web Services Description; Compatibility with RDF languages is 
specified in the WSD WG charter.  We have identified Web Services in 
our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and 
we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of 
the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.

DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program: DAML+OIL was the primary 
input to our langauge (per charter) and we seek feedback from the 
DAML community as to our design and the implementability thereof.

Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group: 
FIPA has identified ontologies as an important work area.  We seek 
feedback as to whether our langauge design provides a proper basis 
for FIPA's development needs.

OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group: OMG has identified 
ontologies as an important work area.  We seek feedback as to whether 
our langauge design provides a proper basis for OMG's development 
needs.


-- 
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)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 21:49:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT