- From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:55:57 -0700
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <471D388D.1070704@sandsoft.com>
I agree with Evan on both his objection to option 1 and his thoughts on a 'feature delta' document. Thanks, Elisa ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: >Jeremy described some options for a publication schedule >for first Working Drafts. Here are my thoughts: > > > >>Option 1: >>(from telecon - with clear support) >>Publish member submission documents, with disclaimer indicating that >>while this are the focus of our discussion they are not yet 'consensus' >>documents - >>amendment from HP: perhaps not RDF Mapping >> >> > >I was originally lukewarm to this option, now I object to it. What value >is there in re-publishing these documents? They are already base documents >by charter. Let's work on getting some *group* agreement, and use the >heartbeat deadline as incentive to publish something significant that >reflects this agreement. > > > >>Option 2: >>(variant of option 1) >>Publish member submission documents but only those parts for which we >>already have consensus, with stubs where we don't have consensus yet. >> >>I would expect this to emphasis subproperty chains and QCRs as the two >>main new consensus features >> >> > >That is a pretty conservative feature list. Do you expect issues with >the support for more expressive restrictions based on datatype properties >and the user defined datatypes that go with that? What about the new >metaproperty types in the OWL 1.1 proposal? > > > >>I doubt that there would be enough consensus over any part of the RDF >>Mapping doc to make it worth publishing. >> >> > >This is an important document to evaluate in understanding how this new >design changes OWL as seen in RDF. We should give ourselves more time >for this one. > > > >>Option 3: >>My proposal from the telecon, dropped due to no obvious support at the >>meeting: >>Start with an OWL 1.1 requirements doc. >>This would have the advantage of taking the possible readership of a >>FPWD with us; as opposed to the highly technical member submission docs, >>which are likely to only be meaningfully read by a tiny elite. >> >> > >We should work on this early in the process. It would be very useful >for our group to have a document that presents, in a widely understandable >way, the feature delta that we are targeting for this revision of OWL. >Have you thought much about what this would include? I don't think that >we need use cases. What we do need are descriptions of each feature with >examples of how or where they might be used. It also be helpful to >include additional discussion of certain features that were requested but >not included and why. > >Another possibility is to work on options 2 and 3 in parallel. I would >be in favor of such a plan. > >-Evan > >Evan K. Wallace >Manufacturing Systems Integration Division >NIST > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 23:56:21 UTC