Vote on hasValue (was Re: owl lite starting to look like more trouble than it's worth)



Deb introduced this issue long ago.  We never put it to vote hoping 
to get some consensus.  This consensus is clearly not there, we have 
"cannot live with it" objections on both sides of the issue.

The W3C process document, in section 4.1.2 ([1] - publicly readable) states:

>Only after the Chair has determined that all available means of 
>reaching consensus through technical discussion and compromise have 
>failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a deadlock, should a 
>group vote to resolve a substantive issue. In this case, the Chair 
>must archive:
>     * the decision to conduct a vote (e.g., a simple majority vote) 
>to resolve the issue;
>     * the outcome of the vote;
>     * any objections.
>A Working Group participant must be in good standing in order to 
>participate in a vote to resolve a substantive issue.

This chair has determined that all means of reaching consensus 
through technical discussion and compromise have failed.  Deb brought 
up this issue when we first decided on Lite, she raised it as a 
formal issue on Oct 31, 2002 - we've had plenty of time to consider a 
middle road, none has emerged.

On today's telecon it is my intention to
  i. Ask Deb to state her proposed resolution
  ii. allow any respondent who wishes to make a comment as to their 
opinion (without rebuttal or discussion, unless new points are raised 
not yet seen in the mailing list)
  iii.  move to a vote

normally we would straw poll in there, but we've taken several straw 
polls on the issue to date, and I see nothing to indicate any changes 
in position.

(note: if anything new comes up, it is possible we would examine 
that, rather than move to the vote - however, at this point this 
seems unlikely)

  -Jim Hendler
   CoChair, Web Ontology Working Group



At 9:23 AM +0000 12/12/02, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>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.
>>  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.
>>  > 
>  > >
>>  > 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
>>   email:
>>   URL:
>>   (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer 
>>fax)  801 705 0941

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 09:26:45 UTC