Re: owl lite starting to look like more trouble than it's worth

PLEASE do not reopen the OWL Lite issue again!!!

We have had continual requests for OWL Lite from people watching our work and that is
what Frank and I largely responded to in our efforts to get it out.
We have already had decisions to include it from as far back as the amsterdam face to
face.  Since it was not recorded officially in the minutes then we got an official
inclusion of the request and decision later.
A significant amount of work has gone into it and I believe and many of us believe it
is absolutely critical to the acceptance of some version of OWL.
After posting OWL Lite, we have had a number of public comments from industry stating
how important it was to have a OWL Lite for acceptance.  I summarized those comments in
the bristol f2f.

OWL Lite is not putting the schedule at risk if either we leave it as it is or we add
hasValue with the existing semantics.  The only thing that puts the schedule at risk is
adding new semantics.


Dan Connolly wrote:

> Ugh!
> I'm trying to prepare for tomorrow's telcon,
> and I think it's a shame that so much energy
> is being spent on whether something is in
> OWL Lite or not, or whether OWL Lite has
> a different semantics or what-not.
> I'm tempted to use this as new information
> and ask to re-open issue 5.2 on the grounds
> that OWL Lite is putting our schedule at risk.
> We really need to get into the mode
> of careful editorial review and running
> tools over the test suite, as Jeremy
> noted 6Dec
> Hmm... I thought I abstained on that decision; I must
> not have been paying attention...
> "RESOLVED: to close 5.2, endorsing existing an owl lite language subset
> and test class."
>  --
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C

 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 18:17:24 UTC