- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:26:02 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter - your message explained - I thought we were talking about "in OWL" as opposed to "in OWL Lite/DL" because I misunderstood Jeremy's original message - if I'd spent more time thinking I'd of realized that is what you meant - apologies. (Dan C - this explains why you were confused - I thought we were talking "change DAML+OIL" which requires an affirmative WG action) -JH At 9:58 -0500 1/23/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >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 -- 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) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 17:26:08 UTC