- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:19:12 -0500
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
The Web Ontology WG is pleased to announce the publication of five
last call WD's for the OWL Web Ontology Language. Our WG has made
its best effort to address all comments received to date, and we seek
confirmation that the comments have been addressed to the
satisfaction of the community, allowing us to move forward as a
Proposed Recommendation following the Last Call process.
The following are our Working Drafts in Last Call:
* OWL Web Ontology Language Overview
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Reference
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Guide
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/
* OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
* Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webont-req-20030331/
1.0 General Information
Comments should be sent to public-webont-comments@w3.org. Comments
are due by 9 May, 2003.
Patent disclosures (if there were any) would be found at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/discl.html
The decision to advance these documents to last call is recorded in
WOWG Telecon Minutes, 27 March 2003:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0273.html
2.0 Feedback from Other Working Groups
The WebOnt WG seeks feedback from all, but in particular requests
such feedback as can be accomplished in the time alloted from the
following groups:
W3C Groups identified in our charter:
RDF Core
Other W3C Working Groups
i18n
RDFIG
RDF-Logic community
XML Schema
Web Services Choreography
Web Services Architecture
Web Services Description
Non-W3C Groups:
DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program
Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group
OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group
Appended below this message is a short description of the particular
feedback we seek from each of these groups.
3.0 Issues and Dissent
Our issues list can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
It itemizes the disposition of all the major issues considered by the WG.
3.1 Objections
As per W3C process the WG would like to draw attention to the
following formal objections against these WD's:
o Issue 5.6 "Daml:imports as magic Syntax" (Objecting: J. Hendler, MIND Lab;
Dan Connolly), W3C
Issue discussion:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax
Objection by Hendler:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0281.html
o Issue 5.26: "OWL DL Syntax" (Objecting: J. Carroll, Hewlett Packard)
Issue Discussion:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax
Objection by Carroll:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0264.html
Jim Hendler and Guus Schreiber
WebOnt co-chairs
==========================================
ADDENDUM: Specific feedback sought from other groups:
RDF Core: Review of all documents, particularly reference and
Semantics, with respect to design and compatibility with RDF.
i18n: Internationalization is specified as a Goal in our Use Cases
and Requirements document. Do our requirements meet that goal, and
does our langauge design meet our requirements.
RDF Interest Group: General feedback on all of the documents,
specifically on issue of implementation and compatibility with RDF.
RDF-Logic community (Subgroup of RDF IG): Feedback on choices with
respect to logical design, limitations of Lite and DL, and the formal
model theory.
Semantic Web Advanced Development: The SWAD projects participates in
the DARPA Agent Markup Language program and has been developing
Semantic Web applications based on DAML+OIL (among other projects).
We seek confirmation that our design is consistent with the
experience and tools developed in SWAD.
XML Schema: Our handling of xsd: datatypes is based on the XML Schema
Datatypes design and its limitations (with repect to URI naming of
user-enumerated datatypes). We seek confirmation that our design is
consistent with current XSD and also if there may be forthcoming
changes to XSD URI naming or other issues that we should be aware of.
Web Services Choreography; Compatibility with the Semantic Web
Activity is specified in the WSC WG charter. We have identified Web
Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use
case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the
needs of the WSC WG.
Web Services Architecture: We have identified Web Services in our Use
Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we
request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the
WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
Web Services Description; Compatibility with RDF languages is
specified in the WSD WG charter. We have identified Web Services in
our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and
we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of
the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program: DAML+OIL was the primary
input to our langauge (per charter) and we seek feedback from the
DAML community as to our design and the implementability thereof.
Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group:
FIPA has identified ontologies as an important work area. We seek
feedback as to whether our langauge design provides a proper basis
for FIPA's development needs.
OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group: OMG has identified
ontologies as an important work area. We seek feedback as to whether
our langauge design provides a proper basis for OMG's development
needs.
--
Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 13:19:16 UTC