Re: WebOnt Requirements - Summary

R1: S
R2: S
R3: S

R4: S
In general this is indeed a research topic.  But this should not prevent 
us
from including simple things that can help, staying in line with R7 
("clear concepts").
For example, sameClassAs and samePropertyAs from DAML+OIL, and also
subClassOf and subPropertyOf from RDFS, can already be viewed as useful
for interoperability.

R5: U
R6: S
R7: S

R8: U
I have a problem with the name of this requirement.  Any data on the Web 
is
persistent, for the time it is on the Web.  Shouldn't this be called 'time 
validity'
or something like that?

R9: U
R10: S

R11: U
This could be mentioned as an issue under R4, to limit the number of
requirements, and because it clearly fits there.
I feel that Webont should focus on core ontology and reasoning issues,
and that this could become a standardization issue when the core issues
have become clear.

R12: U

R13: S
I would define this as follows: the ontology language offers a semantic
level of description of information on the Web that allows queries to be 
formulated independently from XML serialization, on the basis of the 
meaning of the information.
This would help to realize the vision of Semantic Web technology turning 
the Web
into a large 'database' (compared to the current Web as a large 'book').

R14: S
What I actually support here is a requirement "Reasoning Capabilities"
(or an equivalent formulation): an implementation of the language is 
expected
to make available certain basic reasoning functions to developers of 
software
systems making use of ontologies on the Web.
It is not clear from the label "Expressiveness" that 'reasoning 
capabilities'
is thought to be included.  Each language has a certain expressiveness;
unless made more explicit, this is not really a requirement for a 
language.

(For R13 and R14 see also my previous email to the subgroup.)

R15: U

Regards,
Herman ter Horst
Philips Research