Re: XG W3pm Scope

Excerpts from Henson Graves's message of Tue Jun 03 16:51:28 -0400 2008:

> examine them carefully. DL and related tools are evolving (Motik's
> structured objects and integrity checking, for example), and we need to
> keep this in mind.  

Absolutely; but we should also try to communicate our needs widely because
that sort of feedback is invaluable to infrastructure developers satisfying
our needs.

> To paraphrase Kendall we should (1) document use cases & requirements
> for, say, n-ary datatype predicates; and (2) make sure that OWLWG knows
> what they are so that we and the OWL group maintain consensus and
> awareness, inasmuch as possible in order to make our measurement & unit
> "stuff" fit what OWL2 will provide.

Perhaps I overstated this; I should have said, more accurately, that OWLWG
should know that we believe we have needs in that area, though we aren't
yet sure what they are, since we *do* believe that, and it's not clear that
OWLWG has completely accepted n-ary datatype predicates yet. If we signal
that we believe we'll need *something* in that space, then whether or not
what they do offers us a *full* solution, a partial solution is better than
none at all.

As Evan suggested, he's the obvious person to do this; if this were a WG,
we'd probably need to make a WG decision to empower Evan to do this on our
behalf, but perhaps since we're just an XG, he can do it under his own
steam. I'd certainly be happy w/ him doing that.

Cheers,
Kendall

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 21:12:39 UTC