Re: Issues 4.2, 5.2, 5.15, 5.16: proposal to CLOSE

I don't believe we are ready to close issue 5.15. My understanding was
that we would release the OWL Lite Working Draft but not consider the
set of features in OWL Lite finalized. In particular, I think my concern
(raised at the face-to-face) about whether OWL Lite should be something
that can be easily implemented in Horn logic or datalog is still valid.
As such, I am not prepared to say that local existential range
restrictions belong in OWL lite, and oppose closing 5.15.

Jeff

Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 
> Issue 4.2 Cardinality constructs and Levels
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.2-Cardinality-Constructs-Levels
> 
> Issue 5.2 Language Compliance Levels
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels
> 
> Issue 5.15 Feature decision for compliance level 1: local ranges
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.15-Feature-decision-for-CL1-local-range
> 
> Issue 5.15 Feature decision for compliance level 1: lcardinality
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.16-Feature-decision-for-CL1-cardinality
> 
> Proposal to CLOSE these issues in conformace with the resolutions of the
> Stanford face-to-face meeting [1], as reflected in the feature synopsis
> documentt [2]:
> 
> - OWL will have a named subset, called "OWL Lite"
> - OWL Lite includes both universal and existential local range restrictions
> - OWL Lite includes min/max cardinality restrictions of 0 and 1
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0038.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0040.html

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 12:15:26 UTC