Fwd: WOWG: Status of non-closed issues

Update on issue status based on today's discussions, we're making 
some progress:

>Please take a minute to review the issues below, and
>  1) If you think I've got it wrong, please reply to this mail to the group
>  2) If you feel passionately about one of these issues, please let 
>me and Guus know directly and/or reply to the group.
>ISSUES with a "*" need someone to make a proposal as to how to close.
>Issue 4.4 - extralogical feature set
>  Proposal by Hendler 10/29 to close with no change needed to OWL.

RESOLVED: to POSTPONE (see minutes of today's telecon)

>Issue 4.6 - equivalentTo
>  Still open and to be discussed - depends in part on formalism issues
>(note that we will still need to decide the issue of whether we 
>offer equivalentTo as well as the sameXXXAs constructions - as well 
>as whether equivalentTO is limited to same "type")

Proposal to close by Peter P-S

>Issue 5.5 - List Syntax or Semantics
>   Now that RDF Core has a list construct, the question of what it 
>looks like is resolved, but the issue of whether the semantics are 
>in RDF or OWL remains.  I assume this will be dealt with in the 
>formalism document

OPEN, no progress

>Issue 5.6 - imports
>  this has been discussed, and we are working towards resolution.  I 
>believe we have consensus on the desired behavior, but are 
>struggling with how to write this up.

OPEN, discussion continues, may require vote.

>Issue 5.7 - restricted ranges
>  Likely consensus to POSTPONE this issue, but waiting to hear from 
>Ziv Hellman who raised it.  Email has been sent, if not replied to 
>by time we need it, we'll postpone the issue

RESOLVED: to POSTPONE (see minutes of today's telecon)

>Issue 5.8 - datatypes
>  I believe we have consensus to use the RDF solution.  We need to 
>call this question.  If we do accept this, we need to decide if 
>cardinality constraints will be expressed as datatypes or as numerals

OPEN - RDF is still not totally done w/datatypes - we cannot do much 
until we know what is happening there.

>** Issue 5.9 - malformed D+O restrictions
>  This is essentially subsumed by the semantic document - we need to 
>take an action to either withdraw this issue or to declare it closed 
>- PFPS is issue owner.

Peter P-S has sent a proposal to Close

>** Issue 5.13 - internet media type for OWL
>  Dan C has provided background document and there has been 
>discussion.  Currently it appears that application/rdf+xml is 
>sufficient, and that creating an application/owl media type would 
>take extra work.  We need a proposal to close this issue.

We expect to request a new MIME type - Jonathan B. actioned to write 
this up.  Still unresolved if we will leave this open or close, but 
either way we will request feedback from public comments.

>** 5.14 - Ontology versioning
>  Jeff proposed a solution, it engendered much discussion, but we've 
>not yet reached a concensus.  I believe there might be some 
>consensus to go with his Backward-compatible and extends, while 
>there is resistance to Deprecates.  Jeff proposed these as 
>extra-logical restrictions (i.e. operational rather than formal 
>semantics) minutes seem to reflect soem resistance on part of some 
>of WG to this. We need a proposal to move this issue forward.

No change in status

>Issue 5.17 - XML presentation syntax
>  Peter Patel-Schneider working on this as a document.  We should 
>CLOSE this issue with resolution to produce the document.

No change in status

>** Issue 5.18 - Unique names assumption
>  We need a proposal to close this issue.  One possibility is to 
>accept that the differentThan construct is good enough.  Another is 
>to POSTPONE this issue and to demote the requirement to an 
>objective. Alternatively, someone could propose a mechanism that the 
>formal document could endorse - needs action.
>Deb McGuinness is issue owner.

A proposal to add a mechanism that may help has been suggested.  Pat 
Hayes will write this up.  (see telecon log for today)

>** Issue 5.19 - Classes as Instances
>  We have resolved these are included in large owl.  Some discussion 
>of whether they are allowed in Owl Lite.  Majority reflected 
>willingness to leave out of OWL Lite, but some dissent.  Someone 
>needs to suggest a specific action, or we should Close this issue 
>with resolution that these are allowed in Large OWL (implying they 
>are not part of Lite).

The names OWL LITE, OWL DL and OWL FULL have been resolved to be the 
names of our three langauge subsets.  Proposal not to include Classes 
as Instances in LITE is likely, but not yet approved - see Guus' 

>[Issue 5.21 - drop disjointUnion
>  This was closed last week, issues list needs to be updated to reflect this]

As yet unnamed issue - HASVALUE
Discussion as to whether hasValue should be included in OWL LITE. 
Discussed, but no resolution.  Discussion continues.

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 23:42:09 UTC