Web Ontology Issue Status

This version:
19 Jul 2002
Previous version:
10 Jul 2002
Michael K. Smith (Electronic Data Systems)

Table of Issues

(How to Submit an Issue)

IssueSource DateStatus
1.1 VariablesI. Horrocks on Telecon6 Jun 2002Closed
1.2 Definitional Constraints on Conjunctive Types Telecon19 Feb 2002Closed
2.1 URI naming of instancesMike Dean email6 Jun 2002Closed
2.2 Adding Properties to Other InstancesMike Dean email19 Feb 2002Raised
2.3 Adding Properties to Other ClassesMike Dean email6 Jun 2002Closed
2.4 Enumerated ClassesMike Dean email19 Feb 2002OPEN
2.5 Closed SetsMike Dean email19 Feb 2002Raised
2.6 Ordered Property ValuesMike Dean email19 Feb 2002Raised
3.1 Local RestrictionsMike Dean email6 Jun 2002Closed
3.2 Qualified RestrictionsMike Dean email19 Feb 2002Closed
3.3 DisjointFromMike Dean email6 Jun 2002Closed
3.4 UnambiguousPropertyMike Dean email6 Jun 2002OPEN
4.1 UniqueProp BadName Tim Finan /
Amsterdam F2F
10 Jul 2002OPEN
4.2 Cardinality Constructs Levels Steve Buswell /
Amsterdam F2F
11 Jul 2002Closed
4.3 Structured DatatypesJonathan Borden /
Amsterdam F2F
15 Apr 2002Raised
4.4 Extra-logical feature setJames HendlerApr 19, 2002Raised
4.5 InverseOfJames Hendler19 Apr 2002Closed
4.6 EquivalentToJames Hendler28 May 2002OPEN
4.7 Does OWL provide built in 'model checking' functionalityJames Hendler19 Apr 2002Closed
4.8 Trust and Ontology James Hendler, fwd from John Yanosy, Motorola.6 Jun 2002POSTPONED
5.1 Uniform treatment of literal data valuesDan Connolly24 Apr 2002Raised
5.2 Language Compliance LevelsFrank van Harmelen 29 Apr 2002OPEN
5.3 Semantic LayeringPeter Patel-Schneider 29 Apr 2002OPEN
5.4 OWL:QUOTEMichael K. Smith30 Apr 2002 Raised
5.5 List syntax or semanticsJeremy Carroll 06 May 2002 Raised
5.6 daml:imports as magic syntaxJeff Heflin 10 May 2002Raised
5.7 Range restrictions should not be separate URIs Ziv Hellman10 May 2002Raised
5.8 DatatypesPeter F. Patel-Schneider 17 May 2002 POSTPONED
5.9 Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions Peter F. Patel-Schneider 17 May 2002Raised
5.10 DAML+OIL semantics is too weak Peter F. Patel-Schneider10 Jul 2002 OPEN
5.11 hasClass ToClass namesJim Hendler13 Jun 2002 Closed
5.12 Entailing inconsistenciesJos De Roo20 May 2002 Raised
5.13 Internet Media Type for OWLPeter F. Patel-Schneider 22 May 2002Raised
5.14 Ontology versioningJeff Heflin22 MAY 2002 Raised
5.15 Feature decision for CL1 local range Deborah McGuinness 23 May 2002OPEN
5.16 Feature decision for CL1 cardinality Deborah McGuinness 23 May 2002Closed
5.17 XML presentation syntaxPeter F. Patel-Schneider 16 Jun 2002Raised
5.18-Unique-Names-Assumption-Support-in-OWL Deborah L. McGuinness July 2, 2002Raised
5.19-Classes-as-instances Raphael Volz, email of 7/11/02. 11 Jul 2002Raised
5.20-should-OWL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects Peter F. Patel-Schneider 18 Jul 2002Raised
5.21-drop-disjointUnionOfMike Dean19 Jul 2002Raised
5.22-owl:Class-still-neededMike Dean19 Jul 2002Raised

The Date column above is the date of the last change in status.


This document enumerates issues before the W3C Web Ontology working group. As such, it is an internal aide to the working group to ensure that all issues are dealt with. It is also intended that the resolution of these questions be recorded here.

Most of these issues are based on discussions concerning the requirements document, Web Ontology Requirements. In general, these issues are proposed requirements or objectives for which the working group has not yet been able to reach consensus, in some cases due to wording problems and in others to conceptual disagreements. The current version is an initial draft based on email from members of the WG, but has not yet been reviewed by the WG as a whole.

Also included are items that have been deemed implicit requirements, as well as features of DAML+OIL that are not mentioned in the requirements document. Most of these need to be explained more fully before discussion of their potential status as a requirement can proceed. Please send any expansions on these to the editor.

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document.

This document is a working document for the use by W3C Members and other interested parties. It may be updated, replaced or made obsolete by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use this document as reference material.

This document has been produced as part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity, following the procedures set out for the W3C Process. The document has been compiled by the Web Ontology Working Group. The goals of the Web Ontology working group are discussed in the Web Ontology Working Group charter.

The working group has not reached consensus on all topics. Those items are documented here.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

1. Issues from Requirements Document

1.1 Variables

"Variables: The language should support the use of variables in ontology definitions. Variables allow more complex definitions to be specified, such as the chained properties example above."

Issue raised by Ian Horrocks: wording on variables is too vague.

See proposal to close.

Name I1.1-Variables
Raised By WG Telcon of 28 Feb 2002 discussion of requirements document draft.
Date 28 Feb 2002.
Status Closed, 6 Jun 2002.
Resolution Dropped as objective, kept as issue as reminder to discuss in the future. Discussion complete.
References Proposal

1.2 Definitional Constraints on Conjunctive Types

"Definitional constraints on conjunctive types: The language should support definitions that relate the values of different properties. For example, it should be able to represent the example: style="LateGeorgian" => culture="British" AND date.created="between-1760-and-1811," where style, culture, and dateCreated are all properties"

Name I1.2-Definitional-Constraints-on-Conjunctive-Types
Raised By WG Telcon of 28 Feb 2002. Issue raised by Ian Horrocks during discussion of requirements document draft.
Date 28 Feb 2002.
Status Closed.
Resolution This objective will be dropped.

2 Possible Implicit Requirements

2.1 URI naming of instances

URI naming of instances (ability to refer to instances defined by someone else). This could be merged with "Unambiguous term referencing with URIs", which seems to focus on classes and properties.

See proposal to close.

Name I2.1-URI-naming-of-instances
Raised By Mike Dean e-mail.
Date19 Feb 2002.
Status Closed, 6 Jun 2002.
References Minutes

2.2 Adding Properties to "Someone Else's" Instances

Adding properties to "someone else's" instances.

Name I2.2-Adding-Properties-to-Other-Instances
Raised By Mike Dean email
Date19 Feb 2002.

2.3 Adding Properties to "Someone Else's" Classes

Adding properties to "someone else's" classes (ability to extend a class without subclassing it, ability to split Restrictions across multiple pages/ontologies). This goes with 2, but may conflict with the desire for a greater frame orientation.

See proposal to close.

Our Working group has decided to use RDF/XML as our exchange framework and that the semantics of our documents will be carried by the triple store corresponding to this document (see resolutions of second face to face meeting). The basic RDF model [1] allows documents to refer to and extend the resources defined in other documents.

Name I2.3-Adding-Properties-to-Other-Classes
Raised By Mike Dean e-mail.