- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:24:12 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
My point is exactly that the folks who know about this stuff and care about Sem Web will indeed know about the profiles (whether note or Rec), but the greater world, who will see what beomes a Rec (and the AC that decides what becmes a Rec), will not get so much to try to understand in one fell swoop - so it's really about messaging to the outside world - and I think that is very important at this point where we're finally seeing some uptake on OWL, but it is still fragile. -JH On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> Sandro- >> Feel free to read the process document [1] what confusion would >> there be with the process - the whole idea of WG and review includes >> deciding what to move forward and what not. So I repeat I'd like to >> NOT move profiles to CR at this time. Just as we currently are >> discussing publishing the Manchester syntax as a note, we could do >> the >> same for the Profiles. Why in the world would that confuse people as >> to the process (esp. when the document is publicly available) >> I don't think the problem is with implementation in this case, I >> think it is with the confusion of releasing too much at the same >> time. >> -JH >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi > > Sorry, I misread and thought you were proposing leaving profiles > *at* CR > instead of leaving it before CR. > > It doesn't really change my point. My experience suggests that it's > already too late. OWL EL and QL and RL exist. If we never publish > another draft of Profiles (or publish it as a Note or whatever), > they'll > still be out there on the web, and people will still be talking and > thinking about them. The fact that they are in a Note vs a Rec is > not a > distinction that matters all that much. (Of course it DOES matter, > but > it's a confusing difference to most folks, ... just like QL vs RL. My > point is it's better to help people with the latter confusion > instead of > the former.) > > -- Sandro > >> >> On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >>> >>> Jim Hendler writes: >>>> Frankly, in practice I'm finding it extremely hard to explain why >>>> three profiles are needed, and I would again propose that we >>>> consider >>>> moving the other documents to CR, but hold back the profiles >>>> document >>>> for further work on explanations and to avoid confusion that could >>>> lead to less adoption of DL/Full, which still seems to me to be >>>> where >>>> the most important OWL 2 extensions currently live. >>> >>> FWIW, I think it's easier (and more useful) to explain the >>> difference >>> between QL and RL [1] than the difference between CR and Rec [2]. >>> It >>> seems to me like this "hold back" strategy would leave people >>> (rightly) >>> confused about W3C process instead of trying to understand the >>> differences between the profiles. >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>> >>> [1] They are both ways to make queries of a database and have some >>> OWL >>> inferencing done to give you additional query results. With QL, >>> the >>> data is left as-is, and the queries are re-written to also return >>> OWL inferences. With RL, the *queries* are left as-is, but a >>> process is run to add more data (the OWL inferences) to the >>> database. The choice between the two depends on which inferences >>> you care about (some can only be implemented with one approach, >>> some >>> with the other), and the resource/performance demands of your >>> application. [This is off the top of my head, trying to be clear >>> and simple.] >>> >>> [After writing that, I (as a user) want a clear and simple table >>> of >>> which OWL features are in each, making it easy to see which are in >>> both. That doesn't have to come from OWL-WG.] >>> >>> [2] A "Candidate Recommendation" (CR) is a W3C specification that is >>> mature enough that people should try to implement it, but the W3C >>> has not yet determined whether it has been sufficiently >>> implemented >>> to demonstrate that it *can* be implemented. [This is off the >>> top of >>> my head, trying to be simple and clear. Since I expect QL and RL >>> to >>> be easy to implement, I don't really see how they could >>> legitimately >>> be stuck in CR.] >>> >>> >> >> "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, 17 February 2009 06:24:50 UTC