RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 05:12, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> On January 24, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> > 
> > 
> > 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,
> This is madness - surely you can't be suggesting that we re-open the
> discussion on OWL Lite *AGAIN*:
> 1. The specification of the language has been discussed at great
> length at more than one f2f meeting and has been agreed by the whole
> group *including you*.

Please let's not overreact. All of our decisions have been
made with the understanding that they could be re-opened,
provided sufficient new information came to light after
they were made.

So just because Jeremy (or anybody else) agreed to something
doesn't mean he can't ask to re-open it, provided he gives
new information.

He gave a rationale for why he thinks we should re-open it.
(I'm not saying whether I agree or not; I'm still thinking
it over. Whether to re-open an issue or not is a chairs'
decision, not a WG decision, anyway...)

> 2. Apart from the AS&S specification, which has been stable for
> *months*, the expressive power of OWL Lite was precisely characterised
> in [1], which clearly states that it contains ALC, is contained in
> SHIQ(D+) and that satisfiability/subsumption is thus decidable in
> ExpTime. You clearly saw that because you corrected one of the
> references! (see [2]).
> 3. Simply tinkering with the syntax of OWL Lite almost certainly
> *wont* achieve the result you want/expect (whatever that is).
> 4. If you really did succeed in eliminating the ability to express
> "complete" classes in OWL Lite, you would make it useless in a wide
> range of important applications (e.g., see [3]).

Your technical points seem to be well made; I take no issue with them...

> To get this far with OWL we have all made compromises w.r.t. what
> would have been our preferred outcome. I was under the impression that,
> after a great deal of hard work, we had finally managed to reach a
> position that we can all live with (just), and that apart from some
> relatively minor details we were ready to move forward to last call.
> If we agree to re-open a core issue (i.e., the basic specification of
> one of the OWL species), then I suppose we can expect everyone to
> demand the re-opening of issues were they had formerly agreed to a
> compromise. I.e., we would set back the work of the WG by months, if
> not sabotage it altogether.

... but I do take issue with rhetoric such as that. Jeremy's
request is in order. You're not obliged to argue the
technical point until the chair decides the disposition of
his request to re-open the
issue, though you're welcome to do so. If you have advice
to the chair on whether to reopen the issue too, I suppose
you're welcome to copy it to the WG. But if I were chair,
that sort of rhetoric would count against you, not in
your favor.

> Regards, Ian
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 10:37:20 UTC