Re: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <>
Subject: RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:13:11 +0100

> OK - I'll rephrase the proposal.
> (I was just trying to do the minimal change on the current resolution
> closing the issue).
> How about:
>   - to reopen issue 5.2
>   - to retract the endorsement of existing OWL lite language subset.
>   -  to remove modality = complete from the OWL Lite Class Axioms in the
> Abstract Syntax
>   -  to endorse the modified OWL Lite language subset
>   -  to close issue 5.2
> This is more in keeping with seeing AS&S as the definitive doc.
> Jeremy

My belief is that OWL Lite was approved including constructs like

	Class(foo partial bar restrict(p allValuesFrom(q) maxCardinality(1)))


	Class(foo complete bar restrict(p allValuesFrom(q) maxCardinality(1)))

so this proposal is not simply a matter of fixing a decision that was made in
error, but is instead a proposal to significantly change important
characteristics of the language.  Given this, and the lateness of the
proposal, I believe that the bar for approval has to be set extremely high.

Two questions as well:

1/ Why do you want this change?
2/ Will this change achieve what you want?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 07:05:41 UTC