W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Next steps (Action: all)

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:51:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3C7AC009.1FBD76F7@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>

Now that we are nearing the end of getting the use case and
requirements working draft done, it is time to get moving on our next
set of activities to bring our language to fruition.

PLEASE NOTE:  there is an action item for all members at the end of this
message (see *****)


As stated in our charter, the goal of this working group is to
essentially finish the work on DAML+OIL -- cleaning up issues that
need repair, removing features that seem overly complex, adding
critical features needed for our requirements, and (especially)
documenting everything and creating examples.  In addition, we are
expected to show, via demonstration, that the language can be
implemented and tools built to use it.


We need to begin several processes in parallel if we are going to
complete our work in time to get this language through the W3C
process before the window of opportunity closes -

  1. Language Features (functionality): We need to produce a document
similar to the DAML+OIL Reference that describes the specifics of our
language - starting place on this is determining the language
features we need based on the requirements document and a
"not-covered/not-used" analysis of D+O.

  2. Implementation and Test Suite - we need examples that both show
off the language and that can be used to test implementations (See 4.

  3. Semantics: As evidenced by the layering discussion, developing
the semantic model for the language (mandated by our charter) is not
easy, but needs to be done.  We expect to produce both a model theory
and an axiomization similar to the ones prepared for DAML+OIL.

  4. Developing a set of methodological guidelines on how to use OWL
in practice. This should show use of the language in handling common
modelling issues. It can take the form of a walkthru, but it may be
difficult to find one example domain that shows off everything. . The
examples need to be realistic (and probably linked to the test cases,
see 2). The guidelines should cover modelling issues for which no
direct language feature is available, e.g. defaults, part-of

    These four must all "co-evolve" that is, we must work on them in
parallel, but coordinate and make sure we stay consistent with each
group checking the work of the others.


We are asking every member of the WG to pick one of the above as
your "primary" responsibility -- that is, the one that we will be
expecting you to track and participate in.  You are, of course,
welcome to participate in the others, and all conversation will be on
the mailing list, so you will be able to follow all the activity.
However, we need to make sure we have people to cover all of these,
so we'd like to get an indication of your interest area soon as we

    ***** TO DO:  Please let us know your primary interest area by
March 4.

We will discuss these on the teklecon of March 7.

Please note - we expect report out from each group at the A'dam
meeting in April.

Thanks in advance for your expeditious responses,
Guus Schreiber and Jim Hendler

A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 
Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 17:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC