AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)

Peter:
> I disagree.  I'm very happy that rdf:XMLLiteral is not in OWL Lite or OWL
> DL.
Peter:
> I think that rdfs:seeAlso and
> rdfs:isDefinedBy have no place in OWL Lite or OWL DL.

I am increasingly concerned at the divergence between the OWL described in
AS&S and the OWL created by due WG process.

My understanding is that:
  OWL is DAML+OIL as modified by WG resolution in our issue driven consensus
process.

My understanding is that:
- our documents should reflect WG consensus and the OWL created by such
consensus to the best of the editors' ability
- non-last call WDs and editors' WDs may include substantive material that
is the editors' own input that has not yet been confirmed through the WG
process.
- as we approach last call, my understanding is that editors have a
responsibility to the WG to identify and notify the group of substantive
differences between what the documents say and what the WG has decided.
- a last call WD and candidate, proposed and full recommendations should
correctly reflect WG consensus. Ensuring this is the case is primarily the
editors' responsibility.

In recent days there have been identified three substantive differences
between OWL in AS&S and OWL as determined by the WG. This is sufficient to
make me suspect that the editor has taken too much latitude and needs to
carefully review the document and formally raise issues where he believes
that the document does not reflect OWL as determined by the WG.

The three differences are:
- dataRange
- exclusion of XML Literals from OWL DL
- exclusion of rdfs:seeAlso and rdfs:isDefinedBy from OWL DL

As far as I can tell none of these have been the topic, or subtopic, of any
issue, 	or WG resolution. The first has had a small of amount of discussion.
The other two not.

I am happy to have a discussion on the first.
I expect the other two divergences to be fixed, or for new issues to be
raised which I will oppose.

I also expect a complete list of substantive divergences between AS&S and
OWL as determined by WG process to be provided by the editors before we have
a last call vote.
(I realise that that requires judgement on the part of the editors).

If, during last call, or CR, or PR, substantive issues arise because of such
procedural irregularities I will not hesitate to request a second last call.

(These two might look like minor tweaks to Peter, however I cannot live with
them).

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 04:17:25 UTC