Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors

Hi:

Here are some more concerns I have with the requirements document.

1/ I appears that there will be considerable editing on the document.  I
   need another pass on the document to see if any new problems have
   surfaced.

2/ The introduction to the document reads as if the requirements therein
   are more than cast-in-stone.  It needs to be toned down to note that it
   is a document that has been produced by fallable humans, who have to be
   able to fix their mistakes without causing the end of the world as we
   know it.

3/ I don't understand what 

	Note that it is possible for a revision to change the intended
	meaning of a term without changing any axioms.

    is supposed to mean.  Is OWL supposed to know about the intended
    meaning of terms in ontologies?  If so, how?

4/ Many of the objectives are not adequately defined.

   a) Chained properties 
      Where and when are chained properties allowed?
   b) Variables
      What do variables mean?  Where can they occur?  What power should
      they provide?
   c) Arithmetic primitives
      What sort of primitives?  Where can they occur?
   d) String manipulation
      See above.
   e) Pre- and post- conditions
      What do these mean?  Do they require that OWL incorporate a theory of
      time and action?  

5/ Some of the objectives do not fit within a language definition or fall
   outside of the ontology level

   a) Integration of digital signatures
      This is either part of the transport mechanism, or part of the trust
      level of the semantic web
   b) Bit-efficient encodings
      XML is the transport mechanism.  However, nothing prevents agents
      from implementing a compressed transport mechanism.

6/ Some of the concerns in my previous message appear to not have made it
   into the list of changes.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:47:47 UTC