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

On December 11, Deborah McGuinness writes:
> 
> PLEASE do not reopen the OWL Lite issue again!!!

That is rich! It wasn't Dan that reopened the OWL Lite issue - *YOU*
did that by suggesting a substantive change to its specification.

> 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.

Then why sabotage it by turning it into the same thing as OWL DL?

> 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.  

How do you work that out? Suggesting substantive changes to the
specification at this late stage is bound to put the schedule at risk.

Ian


> The only thing that puts the schedule at risk is
> adding new semantics.
> 
> Deborah
> 
> 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.
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels
> >
> > We really need to get into the mode
> > of careful editorial review and running
> > tools over the test suite, as Jeremy
> > noted 6Dec
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0048.html
> >
> > 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."
> >  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Lite
> >
> > --
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> --
>  Deborah L. McGuinness
>  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
>  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
>  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
>  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
>  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
>

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 04:23:37 UTC