- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:33:05 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
I agree with Bijan that we have a very good start on some of the tasks we need to accomplish to create an OWL 1.1 Recommendation. In fact, in my mind, the hardest part of reaching this goal is defining the model theory and getting the proof of implementation. Here we have a huge head start. But this only addresses the implementation side of an OWL 1.1 specification. We must also have at least one complete and authoritative reference for users to appeal to for answers to questions about the language or as the basis for discussions with implementers (the vast majority of users don't find language semantics such as in S and AS comprehendible, nor should they have to). For OWL 1.0, OWL Reference filled this role well. For me this was the most important document in the OWL Recommendation. I propose that we revise this for OWL 1.1. Bijan: Did you intend the Functional-style Syntax document to replace the role of Reference in OWL 1.1 or was OWL Reference a potential Outreach material in your deliverable list? I think that Guide and OWL Overview are less crucial. Guide was important when most people were using text editors as authoring tools for OWL in RDF/XML. Purpose built OWL editors are now the dominant tool type for OWL authoring (Protege-OWL, SWOOP, TopBraid, etc), and RDF/XML will be seen by fewer and fewer users as time goes on. OWL Overview is largely redundant with OWL Reference, although it currently is the OWL document that succinctly describes the OWL sublanguages and it provides nice overview of OWL for people new to the Semantic Web. I am not yet sure how major an undertaking revising OWL Reference for 1.1 would be. The language features are not that different in 1.1, but OWL Reference used RDF/XML examples and had enough of an RDF perspective that it could require major revision (if the new mapping changes that perspective). Any of the OWL 1.1 Member Submission authors care to offer an opinion on that? Almost no standards activity completes within a year, but if we continue to refine the charter that Bijan has created, particularly the deliverable section, we should be able to define OWL 1.1 as quickly as is possible. Stab the stawman now, rather than the standard activity later. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 22:36:23 UTC