Re: Fragments

Hi,

It is great that we all (or most of us) agree that we need a task force 
to work on details of the rules-based fragment. The fragment name is not 
important for now. I will be more than happy to join and invest time and 
efforts.

Thanks,

Zhe


Carsten Lutz wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would also be willing to be on such a task force. On the other hand, 
> I have serious doubts that it is a good idea to form a general
> subgroup on fragments. In my view, fragments are an integral and
> important part of the upcoming 1.1 spec. So if the WG decides to put
> fragments on rec, it cannot just delegate the whole issue to a
> subgroup.
>
> On the other hand, the WG should maybe not be bothered with all the
> gory details of every single fragment. It thus makes perfect sense to
> install task forces for specific fragments. In particular, a task
> force working on OWL Prime seems to be badly needed since many WG
> members seem to only have a vague idea of what exactly OWL prime is
> going to be. Similarly, DL Lite needs a task force to figure out which
> version exactly we want to have, and even EL++ needs some final
> polishing (but I am not sure that we really need a task force there).
>
> I would like to reiterate my point that we should invest efforts
> to properly understand each fragment that we make rec. This does not
> mean carrying out difficult research within the WG or a task force,
> but the least it means is to check all expressive means in OWL 1.1
> as to whether or not they can *easily* be included in a fragment 
> without destroying its good behaviour. If there are no people willing
> to do this for a particular fragment, I'd take that as an indication
> that it does not have sufficient support to become rec.
>
> greetings,
>         Carsten
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>
>> Ahh, I thought you were asking for comments on the technical side of 
>> this, not about how to get the work done.  I suggest we do it as a 
>> subgroup (task force) as we've done for the user-facing documents - I 
>> volunteer to be on such a task force and reiterate my offer, made 
>> since the beginning of the WG, to be one of the editors of the WG 
>> document(s) on this.
>> -Jim H.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As promised in today's teleconf, here again is the email I sent last 
>>> week with a view to starting a discussion on how to move forward our 
>>> work on fragments.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>>>> Date: 22 February 2008 19:41:19 GMT
>>>> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG 
>>>> <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Fragments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to follow up on Wednesday's telecon discussion, and 
>>>> determine how best to operationalise our (very) provisional 
>>>> decisions on fragments.
>>>>
>>>> What I believe that we need is a new document that defines the 
>>>> (proposed) rec-track fragments. This document should define the 
>>>> syntax of the "scalable schema" (EL++ like) and "scalable data" 
>>>> (DL-Lite like) fragments, and the syntax and semantics of the 
>>>> "rules" fragment (DLP/OWL-Prime like). My understanding is that for 
>>>> the first two we only need syntax restrictions (the semantics are 
>>>> the same as for OWL 1.1 DL) and in the latter case we need syntax 
>>>> restrictions on the DL side (DLP) and a well defined semantics on 
>>>> the RDF side.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> *      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU 
> Dresden       *
> *     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   
> mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
>

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:29:42 UTC