Re: Summary and some analysis: New Semantics Initiative

Brian,

  I didn't know about W3C process included a provision for providing 
beer to logicians ;-)

  I agree that we should proceed slowly and cautiously. All I am 
requesting is that we not hurry to push the spec out when substantial 
issues of layering are still unanswered. I am sure that there is 
consensus that layering is important.  In particular, there are two issues.

  a) avoiding paradoxes in the description logic model theory that owl 
is proposing to use.
  b) specifying the semantics of what I call "mixed graphs", i.e., 
graphs that use constructs from RDF *and* owl. We may have a MT for OWL 
and an MT for RDF, but that does not give us an MT for owl+rdf.

 A solution for (a) does not provide a solution for (b), though a 
solution for (b) is likely to provide a solution for (a).

  I understand that there are process related guidelines (though I don't 
understand their nuances). I would however like to see a consistent and 
perchance even usable framework for the semantic web as a whole (i.e., 
not just rdf), which I am not sure I see right now.

guha

Brian McBride wrote:

>  
> I want to take the sense of the WG on this, but I would like the WG to 
> know that I have procedural concerns:
>
>   o this is being rushed - and the need for speed is not clear to me.  
> I believe that many of the issues of M&S arose from changes made late 
> in the process
>
>   o it is being put together by only a subset of the community 
> interested in this area which does not provide an adequate basis for 
> consensus.
>
>     I suppose I might as well be open about one of my worries here.  
> If a subset of the logicians go one way in RDFCore, and a different 
> subset go a different way in webont then we will be left with a war 
> between the WG's.
>
>     I still think that the right way to do this is to lock all the 
> logicians in a room without a lavatory with all the beer they can 
> drink until they agree on a solution and advise both WG's accordingly.
>
>   o the non-normative status of the proposed new document means that 
> webont can't build a normative spec on it and that does not seem good 
> enough to resolve the issue that is the motivation for doing this.
>
> I would like to hear the WG's thoughts on:
>
>   o to address this problem the solution must be normative; W3C notes 
> and non-normative appendices don't hack it.
>
>   o the consensus process must be open to all with a stake in the issue
>
> Brian

Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:11:56 UTC