Fwd: OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents -- request for reviews

>Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:43:06 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: hendler@dormouse.cs.umd.edu
>Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:42:58 -0500
>To: chairs@w3.org
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents -- request for  reviews
>X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/p05200f07baaffccd7811@[10.0.1.4]
>Resent-From: chairs@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <chairs@w3.org> archive/latest/2437
>X-Loop: chairs@w3.org
>Sender: chairs-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: chairs-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <chairs.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:chairs-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>
>
>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 07:35:18 UTC