From: Frank van Harmelen ([email protected])
Date: 08/28/01
For what it's worth, here is my summary of our discussion on the current
discussion on the AC membership list at W3C on the start of the Web
Ontology WG:
Frank.
----
The discussion on the AC mailing list can be summarised as follows:
Some AC rep's argue against starting the Web Ontology group
on various grounds:
1. they were not properly consulted (the process seems to have been
correctly done according to the W3C process, but that doesn't take
away the feeling)
2. Ontology languages are research, not standardisation, and should
not be done by W3C
3. the Web Ontology group will drain W3C team-resources from other
more urgent activitites (e.g. various XML activities)
4. a chicken/egg problem w.r.t. RDF Core: should RDF Core finish
before the Web Ontology group starts (to give the latter a good
foundation), or should the Web Ontology group start before RDF Core
finishes (to give the latter input on what is required for RDF(S)?
The general opinion was that it would be very bad if the start of the
Web Ontology group were delayed, because the Semantic Web community
would be seen to be divided among itself (I would want to add that also
DAML+OIL has its own momentum now, and would be in danger of spinning
out of W3C control).
The opinion on the specific points above was as follows:
- on 1: the renewed call for review of the Semantic Web activity
including the Web Ontology WG charter should reassure the AC members
on this
- on 2: it should be made clear (by the DAML+OIL joint committee?)
that DAML+OIL is not cutting edge AI research, but well understood
research that is now more then a decade old and tested and tried in
many applications (albeit not Web-applications)
- on 3: it should be made clear (by the W3C leadership) that this
is not the case
- on 4: it should be made clear (by the RDF Core group?) that the
resolution to this chicken&egg problem is to have the two WG's run
in parallel, so that they can iterate proposals and feedback (as is
in fact currently already happening between the DAML+OIL
joint-committee and RDF Core).
Action items would then be:
2: one of us (Peter?)
3: Tim?
4: Ora?
In general, we should encourage known AC representatives to support the
proposed charter (Frank and Ian will approach the OntoWeb membership and
the WonderWeb industrial board for this).
Frank.
----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST