- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:16:55 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
A while ago we had the discussion of the syntactic issues, with an informal discussion between me and Peter in Budapest. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0349 Two of the issuettes remain incomplete, and I am still expecting resolution of these by the WG. [[ B). B1, B2 in OWL DL Syntax We agreed this was desirable: ACTION: jjc Send proof sketch of extension to correspondence theorem with B1 B2 under new intersectionOf semantics. ACTION: pfps review proof sketch of correspondence with B1 B2 (this replaces old action on pfps to work on this proof, withdrawn under (A) above). C) rdf:LIst decision by RDF Core We agreed in principle that: C.1) we could handle this by simply making the rdf:LIst triple optional in the mapping rules C.2) it is better to go further and make the type triple optional on all blank nodes in OWL DL ACTION: jjc send proof sketch that nothing breaks without type triples for blank nodes ACTION: pfps review proof sketch of blank nodes without type triples Flow chart: Proof works ==yes==> propose C.2) ==no==> propose C.1) We note that the desciption of OWL Lite and OWL DL in english would become shorter with this change. ]] The WG agreed with all these actions, and the e-mail log of them is as follows: B) initial proof jjc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0017 review comments pfps http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0111 more detailed account http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0294 C) initial proof jjc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0302 The result had to be weakened a little, and the semantics of owl:DataRange strengthened a little (at some point I indicated that this proof was in doubt while we had semantic layering open, but it is fine now) ***** I am particularly expecting change on the (B) one, since we discussed this in Boston and had consensus there to make the change subject to the technical details working out; we found those details hard, probably because there was a bug in the last call semantics that has been fixed. So the WG decided, mainly on the strength of Peter's technical concerns, to not make this change prior to last call, with the understanding that if the action could be completed the change would be made. This remained the case at the telecon discussing the beer session results. At the moment I hear Jim ready to declare victory and I am feeling somewhat angry. I find the haste (i.e. between the draft to the WG and the msg on the comments list) with which a faulty message was sent off to Dave Reynolds disconcerting. The reply did not address the text "A rationale for not permitting this in OWL DL should be given, preferably as a test case in OWL Full showing an OWL Full non-entailment that would hold in OWL DL if such triples were permitted." The many group members who cheered that reply forward seemed to have failed to have read to the end to see that Jim had made a mistake (of course mistakes get made, but when checked off by three other people?) Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 16:17:25 UTC