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

Christine Golbreich wrote:
>> 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.
> 

I just tried to do that...:-(

Ivan

> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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