RE: Formally addressing issue: rdf compatibility

I am only concerned about process:
+ to the extent that there is inadequate discussion of the issues/issuettes;
+ and should I need to formally object

A test case is that the following document is in OWL Lite.

[[
rdf:Bag rdf:type owl:Class .
rdf:_1 rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
eg:a rdf:type rdf:Bag .
eg:a rdf:_1 eg:b .
eg:b rdf:type owl:Thing .
]]

I am currently dissatisfied with the chair ruling that the RDF compatibility
stuff is an attempt to reopen the OWL Lite discussion - it isn't. If it
were, I do not believe the Bristol decision on issue 5.2 had anything to do
with  the use of RDF non-logical vocabulary items within OWL Lite.


However I can imagine a response from the chair to which I would indicate
that I was happy.
That response is that the decision on 5.2 endorsed OWL Lite also including
the RDF vocabulary permitted by the previously published abstract syntax
document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7
viz the following are excluded:
[[
rdf:type, rdf:Property, rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:domain,
rdfs:range, owl:Class, owl:sameClassAs, owl:DisjointWith, owl:oneOf,
owl:unionOf, owl:intersectionOf, owl:complementOf, owl:samePropertyAs,
owl:inverseOf, owl:DatatypeProperty, owl:ObjectProperty,
owl:SymmetricProperty, owl:UniqueProperty, owl:UnambiguousProperty,
owl:TransitiveProperty, owl:Restriction, owl:onProperty, owl:toClass,
owl:hasClass, owl:hasValue, owl:minCardinality, owl:maxCardinality,
owl:cardinality, owl:sameIndividualAs, owl:differentIndividualFrom,
owl:List, owl:first, owl:rest, owl:nil.
]]
rather than the wholesale exclusion found in the last published AS&S and the
current editor's S&AS -  an exclusion that does not seem to reflect any WG
decision.

I have no need at this time to have the annotations issue added to the issue
list, since I believe we are all but done on it; and similarly I currently
expect an adequate resolution of the xml:lang and rdf:XMLLiteral issuette.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: 25 February 2003 18:17
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: Jim Hendler; www-archive@w3.org; Guus Schreiber
> Subject: Re: Formally addressing issue: rdf compatibility
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 03:16, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > I read in:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#last-call
> >
> > that
> > "Before advancing a technical report to Last Call Working
> Draft, the Working
> > Group must:
> >
> > ...
> > formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants, other
> > Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the
> Working Draft. "
> >
> > I note that I raised an issue rdf compatibility in the message:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0083.html
> >
> > I understand "formally address" to mean:
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#formal-address
> >
> > "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
> addressed an
> > issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence of having
> sent a response
> > to the party who raised the issue. This response should include
> the Working
> > Group's resolution and should ask the party who raised the
> issue to reply
> > with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the initial
> > objection."
> >
> > I hence ask for a response to my message raising the issue.
>
> Just asking for an issue doesn't make it one. The WG has agreed
> that the chairs get to decide what's an issue and what's not.
>
> Er.. oops, no, that's actually not the case. The chairs just
> get to decide when to open issues. hmm...
>
> "Issues are submitted by members of the working group. Such issues are
> marked raised. The process for submission is described above.
>   * The chair may open an issue, normally assigning an owner."
>   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
>
> Jim, you/we need to go back over all the issue requests
> we didn't act on and get them added to the issues list. Sigh.
>
>
> > Jeremy
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 12:46:19 UTC