- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:28:53 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Sorry, some people took my email the wrong way - I've gotten several off line comments on it, so let me be clear -- I was not trying to be rhetorical or to make a point - I was actually asking if we were taking this seriously enough that we would consider it for real or whethet rhe talking point was rhetorical I should obviously have asked more clearly, I was on the way out the door and didn't have time to think (I also didn't mean to cc the WG, but that's another story) So to be clear, I was not trying to be either obstructionist nor to be using this to try to shut off discussion - I think there is a real question as to whether DL and Full must be kept in lock step, and if the WG is willing to go that direction, I would support the rechartering to make it so! Hope that help and apologies for the unfortunate way the question came accross -JH On Feb 4, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Jim Hendler wrote: > > Is the plan to do a rechartering request if we decide not to have an > OWL-Full language? > > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> Here are some of the topics kindly put together by Michael >> Schneider, with some editing by Ian and I. >> >> == Desired Outcome == >> >> * Is there consensus or not in the WG about developing or not >> developing an OWL-Full language? >> * If OWL-Full is going to be created, then in which form, and by >> whom? >> >> == Topic 1: Motivation == >> >> * What were the reasons for having a Full version in OWL 1.0? >> * What is known about existing OWL-Full applications? >> * Is 1.1-DL too restricted, and if so where/how? >> >> == Topic 2: Semantics == >> >> * Do we want to follow Peter's suggestion? (Email: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0162.html >> >) >> * Is compatibility an aim, and if so what would compatibility mean? >> ** RDF(S) compatibility? >> ** Backwards compatibility with OWL 1.0? >> ** Compatibility with 1.1 DL? >> >> Incompatible changes? >> * dropping "syntax reflection"? >> * Skolem constants instead of existential variables? >> >> == Topic 3: Development == >> >> * How do we make it happen (semantics and testcases in the first >> place, also sections in UFDs) >> ** General approach (e.g. dedicated Full-TF needed?; Wiki based >> development? What should go to the WG's issues and actions lists, >> and what should be more "silent"?) >> ** Who would have interest in participating, in which form? >> (creating the drafts; reviewing the drafts; writing Full related >> stuff in UFDs; ...) >> >> * schedule >> >> Speak to you Wednesday, >> >> Alan and Ian >> >> >> > > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, > would it?." - Albert Einstein > > Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler > Tetherless World Constellation Chair > Computer Science Dept > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 > > > > > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 02:29:10 UTC