- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:58:35 -0500 (EST)
- To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: AS&S and WG consensus Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:41:55 -0500 > At 9:08 -0500 1/23/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > >Subject: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS) > >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:17:11 +0100 > > > >> > >> 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. > > > >OK. I should not have modified the mapping rules, and have now taken > >rdfs:comment and rdfs:label out. If you want any of them in, please raise > >an issue. > > I am confused, does this mean you are eliminating these or including > them in OWL Lite/DL? These features have never been a part of OWL Lite or OWL DL so I'm not eliminating them. Jeremy had asked to include them, and I saw no reason not to include rdfs:comment and rdfs:label, but saw reasons not to include rdf:XMLLiteral, rdfs:seeAlso, and rdfs:isDefinedBy. > If the former, then I think you are going against Charter and I'll be > forced to step in. Essentially, unless I am misunderstanding (which > is possible), these features were allowed under DAML+OIL - and > they were used heavily in many of the ontologies created under DAML. They are all in OWL Full, of course. > Thus, removing them is NOT at editor's discretion since that would be > a modification to D+O without consensus of the WG. OWL Lite and OWL DL are the result of a long and tortuous process. They have differed in some aspects from DAML+OIL from the very beginning, as this was necessary to meet the requirements placed on OWL Lite and OWL DL. > If I am wrong, please explain -- I think Jeremy wins on this process > question unless I misunderstand. I believe that you have indeed misunderstood. > Jeremy, if Peter is right, then I suggest you do indeed raise the > issue. Dropping these four constructs would be a major change and as > chair I'm willing to accept and open this issue, holding up release > of AS&S as LC until it is resolved. (note: that other documents can > move to LC while we fix AS&S) Again, there has been no dropping of these constructs. They never have been in OWL Lite or OWL DL. > -JH peter
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 09:58:45 UTC