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

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 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
> issue, or WG resolution. The first has had a small of amount of
> 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
> 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
> procedural irregularities I will not hesitate to request a second last
> (These two might look like minor tweaks to Peter, however I cannot live
> them).

This sort of late game posturing is what can make good specs go bad. You
need to give technical reasons why you "can't live with" what has been
done -- coming from a person who at present doesn't give a hoot either way.
Shrug -- I've never developed any sort of strong affinity for
rdfs:seeAlso -- seems like a wishy washy sort of thing to me. What is your
technical thinking?

I am a little peplexed why folks who were all hot on OWL full in the first
place cannot live with a limited OWL Lite or OWL DL. It is "Lite" for a
reason, no?


Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 07:21:50 UTC