- From: Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:00:45 -0800
- To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
I would like to be involved in 2. and 4. Jonathan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> To: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org> Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu> Sent: Monday, 25 February, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: Next steps (Action: all) > Colleagues, > > 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 *****) > > > WOWG GOAL: > > 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. > > > NEXT STEPS: > > 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. > below) > > 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 > relations. > > 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. > > > WHAT WE NEED YOU TO DO: > > 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 > can. > > ***** TO DO: Please let us know your primary interest area by > Monday, > 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 Thursday, 28 February 2002 13:05:39 UTC