Re: daml:item - still confused

On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:32, Jim Hendler wrote:
> OK, history is we received a request from Bijan Parsia to add
> daml:item to OWL.  I passed his mail to the group [1] - he explained
> that DAML-S finds daml:item important because they need to be able to
> build "typed lists".
>  Jeremy responded [2] to point out that if we added this it would be
> to Full, not DL, since DL doesn't allow the use of lists.  Jeremy is
> correct, but that doesn't answer the question - Bijan didn't ask to
> add it to DL, he asked to add it to OWL (i.e. Full would address his
> issue).
>  Today I said on the telecon that I thought this related to the issue
> of lists, and was told it didn't - but all the previous email about
> this issue has been in the context of lists, and we have it indexed
> under issue 5.5 which is the issue of lists.
>  So I would like to ask if anyone would actually oppose the addition
> of owl:item to Owl Full.  Otherwise I will (in separate email) propose
> we open issue 5.5, add to the closing text the inclusion of owl:item
> in Owl Full, and then reclose the issue.

Er... in the meeting where you accepted the action, I believe
you asked for advice on re-opening issue 5.5 and then indicated
that you did *not* intend to reopen it.

The records are very brief; they don't confirm (nor deny)
my recollection
26 Jun
17 Jun

In response to the comment...

I was expecting you to just read from the record of issue 5.5...
er... aha! actually, 2.5 is the relevant issue...

So I was expecting something like...

Subject: Re: daml:item

> This could be an RDF issue, but given OWL's relationship to DAML+OIL,
> think it could reasonably be handled by WebOnt.
> DAML+OIL had daml:item. While not strictly necessary, i've been 
> encountering a fair number of DAML+OIL ontologies which use it, and the 
> alternative formulations (e.g., for typed lists) is fairly cumbersome.
> So, I'd like it added back in.

Integrating the DAML List vocabulary into OWL is the subject of

The working group decided, 7 October 2002, to
close this issue by using rdf:parseType="Collection".

We avoid re-opening issues unless we have new information
that wasn't available to the working group at the time
of the decision. The working group was aware of the usage of
the DAML List vocabulary when we made the decision, so
we're not inclined to re-open it.

Please let us know if you find this satisfactory.


But now that I go thu the excercise of writing it,
(a) there's no record that we gave any thought
to daml:item at all, and (b) there isn't really
any recorded justification for our decision that
says *why* Bijan should be satisfied that we
took daml:item out.

So now I think his comment *is* new information,
and I think it would be reasonable for the chair
to re-open it.

>   -JH
> [1]
> [2]
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler              
> 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     *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
> ***
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 17:18:42 UTC