Re: Draft for the response to LC comment 58 (fully typed functional-style syntax)

> I think it is not fair to say 'big rush'. What happened is as follows:

Sorry but I was a remote participant. You certainly had a long
discussion before, perhaps on other matters, RDF alternative, the
various semantics etc. From IRC thogh, I did not get the impression
that thre has been a long discussion about this specific point  *to
switch back to full typed syntax*, which has important implications,
in particular when I recalled my earlier email at the F2F, I  did not
get any feedback before the vote. Hence my feeling of rush.

> However, as Boris made us discover, this structure only works if the functional syntax becomes fully typed, too

I missed that point, not sure it's explicit on IRC, it might be worth
to make it clear for everybody.

Thanks .

2009/3/4 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>
>
> Christine Golbreich wrote:
>>> The W3C OWL Working Group has considered your comment and has decided that this is a very good suggestion. Therefore,
>>> the functional-style syntax will be changed to be fully typed, and this will be reflected in the next version of our documents.
>>> Thanks again very much for raising this important issue!
>>
>> Full typed syntax is  perhaps a "very" good idea for *implementors*,
>> but seems a bad idea from the *user* side, as repetively said, see for
>> example my email to the list [1], recalled at the F2F, and my earlier
>> reply to this draft (cc to chairs). Unfortunately I did not get any
>> feedback.
>> Seems also from Michael emails [1] that he did not find it such a
>> *very* good idea either, at least from his first reaction "to deny the
>> requested change".
>> The decision at the F2F to switch back to full typed syntax seems to
>> have been taken in big rush, without new arguments except the info
>> that "Matthew  won't implement a parser in the OWL API for the untyped
>> functional syntax". It is also unclear how this is related to existing
>> implementations and  tools.
>


> we had a long discussion at the f2f, essentially led by Boris' thoughts,
> on how to improve the overall structure of the various OWL components,
> ie, the functional syntax, its RDF alternative, the various semantics,
> etc and to provide a coherent and clearer message on OWL as a whole. The
>  flood of LC comments that were confused in that respect clearly needs
> an answer and this is what triggered many discussions prior and during
> the f2f. The overall 'message' is now described in
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
>
> and it essentially says that there is a 'generic' OWL that can be
> expressed in OWL structures, ie, the UML diagrams, and can have a
> functional or RDF syntax representation (that can be serialized on other
> concrete syntaxes). This is regardless of which formal semantic system
> is used and without any further restrictions that are usually associated
> with DL sublanguages. However, as Boris made us discover, this structure
> only works if the functional syntax becomes fully typed, too. Otherwise
> the message breaks down and we continue to have the messaging mess on
> our hands that transpired in the LC calls.
>
> Boris, is my recollection correct?
>
> Ivan
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 17:37:11 UTC