Re: Next steps (Action: all)

i am very interested in language and am willing to co-edit that document.
I am also quite interested in guidelines and if that can follow the bulk of
the work on language, I am also willing to co-edit.  if not, i am willing to
i am committed to writing a paper on daml+oil motivated by the tricks of the
trade section i wrote for " how and when to use a klone-like language" which
forms a good citation for the guidelines.


Guus Schreiber wrote:

> 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 *****)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
> WWW:

 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801
705 0941

Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:41:36 UTC