W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2007

Re: OWL 1.1 docs (was RE: [ANN] New OWL Working Group Chartered)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:58:34 +0100
Message-Id: <7B6161E9-BA70-4D7B-A9D7-D1558733BEA6@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

[trimmed owl dev]
On Sep 14, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> If a RDFED or RDF 1.1 group wanted some infrastructure, that would be
>> cool too.
> RDF 1.1? Did I miss something?

You missed the indefinite article before RDFED. This is indicating  
that if some such group came into existence, then webont.org would  
happily provide some infrastructure.

In point of fact, I think an RDFnext is a good idea, even if it  
*only* did 1.1 stuff (better syntax, better datatype support,  
standardizing the de facto bnode semantics, and a few other things).  
However, getting consensus on RDF changes is even harder, as far as I  
can tell, then on OWL changes. There are just more players involved.

A good start to making progress is do to something like the OWLED  
workshop series: Set up a meeting that is specifically designed to  
gather feedback on a iteration of RDF. Make sure you have the  
involvement of major users and implementors. Try to get a de facto  
standard going. Gather high priority requirements from the community.  

It's not an easy task. I'm personally interested but frankly have  
*no* time or energy to spearhead such an effort. And it could be  
easily *at least* two years before sufficient consensus was built  
(one reason to target de facto standards as well as de jure ones).

If one were looking for times/places to set a first such meeting, I'd  
suggest ESWC or WWW 2008. ISWC is way far off and has a lot going on  
already (e.g., OWLED and RR).

Another possibility would be to form an XG on this. I'm a little wary  
of XGs cause 1) I don't have a lot of experience with them and 2)  
they feel a bit closed to me. YMMV.

Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 07:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC