AS&S - next steps

Hi Peter

this is the beginning of the offlist thread on how to move forward.
I find it at lot easier if we keep all the discussion on www-archive, mainly 
because I don't like getting thru the HP firewall. Procedurally it's also 
better given its a public WG.

I suggest that:
- we try to characterise where we differ
- we try to generate a plan of action
- I write most and you yes/no given our current availability for OWL

Proposed outputs:
- two or three new ISSUEs for the issue list (possibly all about annotations).
- a workpackage to proceed on OWL DL syntax in graph form.
  (i.e. an ACTION for me to do and you to review, your review scheduled to fit 
in with your other commitments)
- a mutually acceptable decision on rdf:XMLLiteral

=====

My understanding is that we agree on the main thrusts of AS&S, and also tend 
to agree on detailed bug fixes once it is clear what we are trying to do.

However, I think we have differences at the "what we are trying to do" level - 
my current take is we disagree:

- about the importance of simplifying the description of OWL DL RDF Graphs
- about how to resolve the tension between a direct description and the 
implicit description

- about rdf:XMLLiteral   - we probably should have the technical discussion as 
to why I want it, and why you don't - that may be one we could have on 
webont, rather than off-list. This feels like an issuette rather than an 
issue, i.e. not really worth the full ISSUE process. (except I really can't 
live without it!).

- about annotations in general

  my position roughly: try and do as much as RDFS - i.e. free and easy, but 
there will have to be some reduction somewhere, and the annotations *do* mean 
something (not a lot - but not nothing).
   my understanding of your position: do as little as possible, because there 
is a danger that users might think the annotations actually mean something

   So I see you as comfortable with simple text valued annotations as long as 
they are not understood via rdfms-assertion.


Summary of my current understanding of preferred positions:

Syntax:
pfps: minimal, as in AS&S editor's draft (or probably a bit less)
jjc: annotation properties can participate in rdfs:subPropertyOf with each 
other, can be themselves annotated; and can be used on individuals.

Formal Semantics
pfps: none? 
jjc: RDFS compatible 
    The thread "Re: Annotations and entailments" died a death - on 
rdfms-assertion.

Social Semantics:
pfps: none
jjc: rdfms-assertion ('with a vengence')


Jeremy

Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 00:29:41 UTC