- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:45:11 -0500
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
In response to Carsten's concern about TFs, it was my understanding early in the WG that anything done in a TF would need to be reviewed by the whole group, and thus I was just suggesting a place where those interested in how the fragments may be designed and related to each other might like somewhere to talk - still in public (i.e. logged calls) but without making those not concerned with the details for now join. When the various frags are reported back to the main group, I would expect much discussion - just as I assume we'd discuss, for example, the so-called user-facing documents before we would publish them. We could each go off and design fragments separately and in little groups, but then there is little visibility into the thought processes and interactions - my hope is that we will find synergy between the diff fragments, if we don't, it's going to be hard to explain them to the outside world (and the W3C AC) in the end... -JH > 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 >> * >> > "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 Thursday, 28 February 2008 15:46:29 UTC