RE: WOWG: Potential new issues

Here is a subject that has been on my mind but has received no broad
consideration yet:
 
just about all would agree that OWL (or whatever it is to be called)
should be extensible. But can we begin consideration of defining
parameters/mechanisms of what such extensibility will mean and how it
might work?
 
-- Ziv
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 09 April, 2002 20:31
To: webont
Subject: WOWG: Potential new issues


As discussed at the f2f, we wish to keep an explicit issues list,
building off of the one Mike Smith circulated before the f2f.  John
Borden and I believe the following issues were raised at the f2f
 In order to get one of these on the issues list, you should write it up
(just a couple of sentences), send email to WebOnt tagged ISSUE: and we
will get these added to an official issues list and start maintaining
this.



 

ISSUES:

Should we rename unique property?

what is the list of extra-logical features (equal to DAML or including
more?)
How do we address the "tagging" requirements

What do we do about InverseOf (highly used feature, potential logical
porblems - left out of OWL-full proposal)

what should the defaults be (Single/ muliple;required/ optional)

What level is cardinality at, in what ways? Do we have "cardinality" as
well as min/max cardinality.

Is owl:class different from rdfs:class (relates to level 0 issue)

Will RDFS be level 0 of OWL?  (i.e. is RDFS : Level 1 :: Level 1 : Level
2)

Where does Defined Class go?
Where do complementOf, UnionOf, etc. go?
 
Does OWL need global restrictions?

How are we handling complex XML datatypes  (RDF does simple, our Req
says complex)

Do we have equivalentTO in level 1 (as idiom for same
instance/property/class)
What happens when a class is equivalentTo a instance?
What happens when a class is equivalentTo a property?

What is our current perspective on round-tripping?

Does OWL provide "model checking" functionality -- that is, does OWL
constrain RDF graphs (i.e. can we constrain the RDF graph; e.g can you
fix the "two cardinality" problem)
 note: NO, this goes to presentation?

Do we allow foo:bar owl:subPropertyOf rdf:type??



-- 
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)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland                College Park, MD
20742
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler