Re: F2F: The requirements vote


for those of us who were not at the meeting, can you provide some 
additional clarification on teh requirement spec for OWL.  I guess 
the proposed requirements are to be interpreted as additional 
requirements on top of what daml+oil already provides.  is this 
correct? And I guess I should also infer that what is not currently 
in daml+oil and is not listed below is not going to be in OWL.  Is 
this is also a correct inference?



At 11:01 am -0500 16/1/02, Jim Hendler wrote:
>At the f2f yesterday (Jan 15) we listed a number of proposed
>requirements (defined as something that our language will support or 
>we are not done) and "voted" with respect to whether we felt these 
>were requirements we wanted in the language -- all these things are 
>seen as potentially useful goals, but we were trying to winnow down 
>those that are really key requirements.
>  The list below are those that made it to the "finals" based on 
>gathering use cases and boiling out requirements.  The scores 
>represent votes as follows:
>  A - more than half the group in favor, no one strongly opposed
>  B - more than half the group in favor, one or two strongly opposed
>  C - more than half in favor, a considerable minority opposed
>  X - more than half opposed
>  "-" - none of the above.
>An action was taken by Jeff Heflin, Raphael Volz, and Jonathan Dale 
>to edit the use case/requirements document.  They will edit the 
>requirements, including more details of what each means, and how 
>they are prioritized. 
>  -Jim H.
>   scribe for requirements vote
>  B Define range contraints on data types
>  - Definitional contraints of conjunctive type
>  B- Relational Types
>  B- Class as instance
>  A Ontology namespaces/inter-ontology reference
>  B Ontology mapping relations (equivalento)
>  A Annotation/tagging of ontologies (some particular properties)
>  B ontology partitioning
>  A lexical representation (internationalization)
>  C layered approach ^
>  X multicultural mechanism (view)
>  - arithmetic primitives
>  C capability (chaining of properties, transitivity)
>  X support for speech acts
>  - support for variables
>  - pre and post conditions
>  X ability to integrate signatures
>  - (procedural attachment)
>  B- records (complex datatypes)
>  C effective decision procedure
>  X unique name assumption
>  X bit efficient encoding
>  A unambiguous term referencing using URIs
>  B commitment to  ontologies
>  C- commitment to portions of ontologies
>  B solution to "tagging/grouping" problem
>  A ontology management language features (versioning)
>  B ability to state closed worlds
>  A ability to state uniq. names
>  A character set support
>  A uniqueness of unicode strings
>  - support for expressing work flow
>  X defaults
>Professor James Hendler
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
>AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 14:32:55 UTC