Re: ADMIN: Agenda/Logistics - Oct 31, 2002 telecon

On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 12:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> Given that we didn't get around to the semantics document,

Yeah, that's kinda unfortunate... I guess I hijacked the
agenda in some ways...

Meanwhile, after the telcon, JimH and Guus and I talked
about stuff to do about this rather than just letting
it sit for a week. We've got reviewers in mind and
stuff. Expect to hear from JimH.

[...]
> Points with respect to the New Semantics Document

Er... is there some reason you didn't include a pointer?

> - Move forward to make this a WG document?

I hope we'll be prepared to decide next week.
Certainly by the following week.

> - Organization
>   - Introduction
>   - Abstract Syntax
>   - Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
>   - Mapping to RDF Syntax
>   - RDFS-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
>     - Commonalities, Fast OWL, Large OWL
>   - Correspondence between Abstract OWL and Fast OWL (Informative)
>   * What else is needed?

I can't think of anything.

>   * What should be removed?

I don't see anything.

> - Stances on Open Issues
>    - 4.4 - Extra Logical Feature Set - only imports
>          - annotations - easy to handle in abstract syntax
> 		       - harder in RDF syntax (and not yet done)

ok by me...

>    - 4.6 - equivalentTo - no equivalentTo anywhere
> 	   - sameIndividualAs carries very similar meaning in Large OWL
> 	   * I believe that this treatment is a basis for closing the issue

yup;

I'd prefer to just call it sameAs, since the domain/range
isn't actually constrained to individuals/Things.


>    - 5.5 - Lists are handled directly, and in a minimal fashion
> 	   - I believe that it works in Fast OWL
> 	   * I believe that this treatment is a basis for closing the issue

I'd like to study the details of this a bit more,
but there's a good chance I won't get to it.
I'm not opposed to publishing in any case,
but I might not be ready to close this issue.

>    - 5.6 - imports - only partly handled
> 	   - easy to handle in abstract syntax, as in my email message
> 	   - harder in RDF syntax (and not yet done)

That meets my expectations.

>    - 5.9 - malformed restrictions
> 	   - currently different from DAML+OIL
> 	     - a restriction with two onProperties causes the properties to
> 	       be identified (as if there was a samePropertyAs axiom)
> 	   - should this be changed back to the DAML+OIL situation
> 	     - a restriction with multiple onProperties or other properties
> 	       implies an equality between the satisfying sets of individuals
>            * can go either way, but the change from DAML+OIL requires a decision

I don't see much difference either way.
The guide should clearly say "don't do that."
What happens when you do, I don't much care;
whatever makes drafting the semantics easiest
is OK by me.


>    - 5.19 - classes as instances 
> 	    - allowed in Large OWL, forbidden in Fast OWL
> 	    * this is in accordance with the direction agreed on at the F2F

yup, ok.

>    - 5.7 - no datatype range constructs

That's ok by me, but I think DAML users expect this
functionality, and we need to check that they
find this acceptable, for now. We may need to
mark this POSTPONED in the issues list, rather
than claiming to have addressed it.


>    - 5.8 - datatypes handled in a similar manner to current RDF proposal

whatever that means. 1/2 ;-)

>    - 5.13 - internet media type - no stance

ok by me.

>    - 5.14 - ontology versioning - no solution

ok by me.

>    - 5.17 - XML presentation syntax - not relevant

right.

>    - 5.18 - unique names assumption - no solution

ok by me, though I'm on the hook to propose the
Distinct/AllDifferent thingy.

> 
> WARNING:  I will be making proposals based on this document.  

I look forward to them!

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:33:07 UTC