Re: OWL-1.1-Full TF [Was: Introductions]

Michael Schneider wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
>> Just a reminder that there is an outstanding action to draft  
>> semantics for QCRs. I'd be quite interested in you pooling efforts  
>> with Jeremy to make progress on this.
>> -Alan
> 
> (Ah, my first day in the WG... :))
> 
> You certainly mean:
> 
>   "ACTION-48: Attempt Wiki sketch of QCR semantics OWL Full"
> 
> It's marked as "overdue". Ok! Thanks for pointing me to this. 


> Nevertheless, from an
> OWL-Full development perspective, I would rather plea the WG that this
> action is dropped or freezed at the moment (whatever is formally possible),

either is - dropping is easier.

I was intending to do this tomorrow morning - with both syntaxes (as 
suggested by Peter and Pat), but probably limited to only min or max.

> since it is really something like an "implementation detail" of the OWL-Full
> spec (I do not find a better name at the moment). 

Yes - but isn't producing an OWL Full semantics achieved by doing all 
these implementation details.

> Otherwise, we could bring
> up a big list of actions like:
> 
>   "Attempt Wiki sketch of ?x semantics OWL-Full"  
> 
> where '?x' stands for
> 
>   * sub property chains
>   * asymmetric properties
>   * self restrictions
>   * data ranges
>   * ...
> 

...

I think that is the task. And QCRs are as good a place to start as any 
other. Getting one or two of these items done, might then give us enough 
idea of where we might be going to have an informed discussion.

I would think subproperty chains were fairly important, with some of the 
things as more minor.

What is your sense of what the major issues are, that are not reducible 
to a collection of implementation details?


Bijan's alternative proposal is probably one ...
I think whether we wish to revisit the layering issues is another (and 
this say interacts with Bijan's skolemization proposal).





Jeremy

Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 18:01:41 UTC