Re: Heads Up - Important meeting Wednesday - PR Vote!!

>Herman - I think the bottom line is whether you think there will be 
>substantial changes to our documents needing WG in the critical path, 
>or whether we could vote for PR and authorize the editors to make the 
>changes you suggest below.  Guess this depends on you sayig you think 
>it would be sufifcient (i.e. WG has no decisions to make) and Ian 
>accpeting the action...
>  -JH
>At 15:10 +0100 11/12/03, wrote:
>>I see some problems to decide next thursday to
>>request PR for the OWL Semantics document S&AS.
>>First, the text is not up to date with the RDF
>>Semantics document.
>>It still contains the following lines:
>>"The specifics of datatype theories used here differ
>>slightly from those in the RDF semantics currently
>>under review.  It is expected that these discrepancies
>>will be resolved during last call, following which this
>>document will be revised to correspond directly to
>>RDF datatyping."
>>There are various discrepancies between S&AS
>>and the current RDF Semantics document.
>>For example, S&AS uses RDF's datatyped interpretations
>>for vocabularies instead of graphs, as is done in
>>the current RDF Semantics editorial version.
>>(Actually, it seems that on this point it is not S&AS
>>but the RDF Semantics document that should change - I
>>sent a message about this to rdf-comments [1].)
>>The definitive text of the RDF Semantics document is not
>>yet available.  In fact, RDF Core are now discussing
>>the LC2 comments.  However, it is expected that the
>>definitive text is available soon.
>>In connection with the new RDF semantics several
>>technical, textual corrections need to be made to S&AS.
>>Wouldn't it be better to make these changes and review
>>these and then decide to go to PR with the document?
>>Since WebOnt's last call there have been many changes
>>to S&AS, and these are clearly visible in red in the
>>editor's draft.
>>It seems that it would be a good idea to go
>>further than checking whether the RDF-related
>>updates are correct, and to do a "mini review"
>>(before deciding about PR) of the main text, Sections 1 through 5,
>>not to talk about water under the bridge but to focus on
>>whether the document is up to date with RDF Semantics
>>and on whether the changes are not in conflict with each
>>Unfortunately, I have no time to do this before thursday.
>>Moreover, the final RDF part is not yet in so it seems better
>>to wait with such an action until that is in.
>>It should be noted that the appendix of S&AS that proves the
>>correspondence theorem seems never been to have been reviewed in
>>detail up to the point that a reviewer says yes, I consider
>>this theorem proved.
>>I am concerned about the possibility of errors in the
>>correspondence theorem.
>>This is not improved by the remark of Ian during the last
>>telecon that "the correspondence theorem is broken".
>>Ian: perhaps you can give more concrete information about
>>The situation is now that there are two normative descriptions
>>of OWL/DL entailment, one in Section 3 and one in Section 5.4.
>>Corresponding with this, there are two routes for description
>>logic reasoning with OWL in the form of RDF:
>>one that uses the definition in Section 5.4 and one that
>>uses the definition in Section 3 in combination with
>>preprocessing and postprocessing from and to RDF.
>>The correspondence theorem claims that the two routes
>>are consistent.
>>In case they are not, I propose that Section 5.4 is made
>>Herman ter Horst
>Professor James Hendler
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies             301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.            301-405-6707 
>Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742                  240-277-3388 


I do not expect that the adaptation of S&AS to the definitive
RDF Semantics text will lead to the need that the WG makes
decisions involving design.
Since there are relatively many textual changes, they also need to 
be reviewed, in my view.

The main point that seems to need a WG decision before the decision 
to go to PR is the proposal to make Section 5.4 informative.
In view of Jeremy's mail, it is perhaps too quick
to take this decision today.

It is standard practice, in case of two alternative descriptions,
to make one normative and the other informative.
If both descriptions would be normative, then there should be a really 
good proof of equivalence.  And, as I said above, WebOnt did not do a 
complete review of the proof.


Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 11:06:08 UTC