OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents
OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents: Request for Reviews
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:47:41 -0800 From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: OWL Web Ontology Language Last Call Documents -- request for reviews [From: Jim Hendler <email@example.com>] [Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:43 PM]
The Web Ontology WG is pleased to announce the publication of five last call WD's for the OWL Web Ontology Language. Our WG has made its best effort to address all comments received to date, and we seek confirmation that the comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the community, allowing us to move forward as a Proposed Recommendation following the Last Call process.
The following are our Working Drafts in Last Call:
* OWL Web Ontology Language Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-features-20030331/ * OWL Web Ontology Language Reference http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-ref-20030331/ * OWL Web Ontology Language Guide http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/ * OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/ * Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webont-req-20030331/
1.0 General Information
Comments should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Comments are due by 9 May, 2003.
Patent disclosures (if there were any) would be found at:
The decision to advance these documents to last call is recorded in WOWG Telecon Minutes, 27 March 2003:
2.0 Feedback from Other Working Groups
The WebOnt WG seeks feedback from all, but in particular requests such feedback as can be accomplished in the time alloted from the following groups:
W3C Groups identified in our charter: RDF Core Other W3C Working Groups i18n RDFIG RDF-Logic community XML Schema Web Services Choreography Web Services Architecture Web Services Description Non-W3C Groups: DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group
Appended below this message is a short description of the particular feedback we seek from each of these groups.
3.0 Issues and Dissent
Our issues list can be found at:
It itemizes the disposition of all the major issues considered by the WG.
As per W3C process the WG would like to draw attention to the following formal objections against these WDs:
Issue 5.6 "Daml:imports as magic Syntax" (Objecting: J. Hendler, MIND Lab; Dan Connolly), W3C
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax Objection by Hendler:
Issue 5.26: "OWL DL Syntax" (Objecting: J. Carroll, Hewlett Packard)
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax Objection by Carroll:
Jim Hendler and Guus Schreiber
ADDENDUM: Specific feedback sought from other groups:
RDF Core: Review of all documents, particularly reference and Semantics, with respect to design and compatibility with RDF.
i18n: Internationalization is specified as a Goal in our Use Cases and Requirements document. Do our requirements meet that goal, and does our langauge design meet our requirements.
RDF Interest Group: General feedback on all of the documents, specifically on issue of implementation and compatibility with RDF.
RDF-Logic community (Subgroup of RDF IG): Feedback on choices with respect to logical design, limitations of Lite and DL, and the formal model theory.
Semantic Web Advanced Development: The SWAD projects participates in the DARPA Agent Markup Language program and has been developing Semantic Web applications based on DAML+OIL (among other projects). We seek confirmation that our design is consistent with the experience and tools developed in SWAD.
XML Schema: Our handling of xsd: datatypes is based on the XML Schema Datatypes design and its limitations (with repect to URI naming of user-enumerated datatypes). We seek confirmation that our design is consistent with current XSD and also if there may be forthcoming changes to XSD URI naming or other issues that we should be aware of.
Web Services Choreography; Compatibility with the Semantic Web Activity is specified in the WSC WG charter. We have identified Web Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the WSC WG.
Web Services Architecture: We have identified Web Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
Web Services Description; Compatibility with RDF languages is specified in the WSD WG charter. We have identified Web Services in our Use Cases and Requirements document as a valuable use case, and we request feedback on whether our requirements satisfy the needs of the WSA WG and if we have met those needs.
DARPA Agent Markup Langauge (DAML) Program: DAML+OIL was the primary input to our langauge (per charter) and we seek feedback from the DAML community as to our design and the implementability thereof.
Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents ontology working group: FIPA has identified ontologies as an important work area. We seek feedback as to whether our langauge design provides a proper basis for FIPA's development needs.
OMG Ontology Platform Special Interest Group: OMG has identified ontologies as an important work area. We seek feedback as to whether our langauge design provides a proper basis for OMG's development needs.
Professor James Hendler email@example.com 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 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Prepared by Robin Cover for The XML Cover Pages archive. See other details in the news story "W3C Web Ontology Working Group Publishes Last Call Working Drafts."