* DRAFT *
WebOnt Working Group Charter
The mission of the WebOnt Working Group, part of the Semantic Web Activity, is to produce W3C Recommendations for an extension to the Web Ontology Language (OWL). It represents a relatively small set of extensions of OWL that:
- have been identified by users as widely needed, and
- have been identified by tool implementers as reasonable and feasible extensions to current tools.
The OWL1.1 member submission, the list of postponed issues of the WebOnt Working Group, and the results and experiences of the OWLED Workshop series (Galway, 2005; Athens, 2006) form the basis of these extensions. Other submissions are also welcome.
Note that this charter uses the term “OWL1.1” for an easier reference. However, it is up to the Working Group to decide whether the final name of the extension will bear the name “OWL1.1” or not, and whether the new features will be in the same namespace as the current OWL terms or not.
| End date | 1 July 2009 |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Proceedings are public |
| Initial Chairs | Proposed: Ian Horrocks (University of Manchester, UK) Proposed: Alan Ruttenberg (ScienceCommons, MA, USA) |
| Initial Team Contacts (FTE %: 50) |
Sandro Hawke (35%); (Alternate) Ivan Herman (15%) |
| Usual Meeting Schedule | Teleconferences: Weekly
Face-to-face: maximally 3 per year |
Scope
The extensions, referred to as OWL1.1, fall into the following categories:
- Extensions to the logic underlying OWL, adding new constructs that extend the expressivity of OWL (e.g., qualified cardinality restrictions, property chain inclusion).
- Extensions to the datatype support provided by OWL, e.g., with XML Schema Datatype semantics and datatype facets.
- Additional syntactic facilities that do not extend the expressive power of OWL but that make some common modelling paradigms easier to express (e.g., disjoint unions).
The starting point for the Working Group is the OWL 1.1 member submission that defines expressiveness extensions for OWL, refined abstract and XML syntaxes, and a mapping from the abstract syntax to RDF.
For each feature defined as an extension, backward compatibility with OWL, simplicity, and an adherence to the overall Web architecture are of importance. If, for a specific feature, there is doubt or a perceived problem on any of these issues, the guideline should be to not include the feature in the set of extensions. All extension features should have a clear semantics both in terms of OWL DL and OWL Full.
Editorially, priority should be given to extend the current set of OWL documents wherever possible, with a clear indication of what the new features are, as opposed to produce a different set of documents, with a different organization, etc. There are two possible approaches:
- Produce strictly delta documents on all current OWL documents and nothing else
- Produce delta documents on the OWL Reference and OWL Guide documents only, and take a more relaxed approach on the others, and with possibly new documents added to the suite. This may include a rationalization and tightening of the specification of the abstract syntax of OWL DL so as to better support APIs
The Working Group will have to decide, early in its operations, which editorial approach to adopt. The goal is to ensure an easy transition of the Semantic Web community to OWL1.1.
The Working Group may decide to publish additional documents that are not in the current set of OWL Specifications, e.g., a separate XML Exchange syntax. The Working Group can decide whether such documents are published as W3C Notes or as additional W3C Recommendations.
The Working Group will work to ensure a smooth transition from OWL to OWL 1.1 by providing suitable outreach documents (whether new or as updates to existing documents).
Deliverables
- Extended Web Ontology Language (OWL1.1) specification as a W3C Recommendation.
Other Deliverables
- XML Exchange syntax for OWL1.1 (to be decided by the group whether this document should go through the W3C Recommendation track or would be published as a W3C Note)
- Outreach documents on OWL to OWL1.1 transition
Milestones
Note: The group will document significant changes from this initial schedule on the group home page.
| Specification | FPWD | LC | CR | PR | Rec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWL1.1 | T+4 | T+10 | T+ 14 | T+16 | T+18 |
Timeline View Summary
- Month T: First teleconference
- Month T+2: First face-to-face meeting
- Month T+4: First Public Working Draft for OWL1.1
- Month T+6: Second face-to-face meeting
- Month T+10: Last Call for OWL1.1
- Month T+10: Third face-to-face meeting
- Month T+14: Working Group Note for the XML Exchange syntax for OWL1.1 (in case the WG decides to publish it separately as a note)
- Month T+14: Fourth face-to-face meeting
- Month T+14: Candidate Recommendation for OWL1.1
- Month T+16: Proposed Recommendation for OWL1.1
- Month T+18: OWL1.1 Recommendation
Dependencies
W3C Groups
The WebOnt Working Group expects to maintain contacts with the following groups within W3C
- Semantic Web Coordination Group
- To ensure synchronization with all other Working and Interest Groups in the Semantic Web Activity
- Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group
- To help produce the RIF deliverable on using RIF with OWL and generally avoid unnecessary difficulties for users working with RIF and OWL in combination
- Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group
- To synchronize possible OWL1.1 outreach issues
- Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group
- To consider the use case requirements possibly raised by the HCLS community when defining the various OWL1.1 extensions
- XML Schema Working Group
- To ensure that the possible datatype support of OWL1.1 is not incompatible with the XML Schema datatypes
- Technical Architecture Group
- To ensure that the decisions taken by the group are conform to the general Web Architectural principles
Furthermore, WebOnt Working Group expects to follow these W3C Recommendations:
Participation
To be successful, the WebOnt Working Group is expected to have 10 or more participants for its duration. Effective participation in WebOnt Working Group is expected to consume one work day per week for each participant; two days per week for the editors. The WebOnt Working Group will also allocate the necessary resources for building Test Cases.
Participants are reminded of the Good Standing requirements of the W3C Process.
Communication
This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing list @@@LIST NAME@@@. Provide information about additional Member-only lists that are used for administrative purposes.
Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the @@@Link@@@ WebOnt Working Group home page.
Decision Policy
As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.
- When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group meeting for which the agenda indicated the possibility that a decision on that particular issue might be made. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters may vote on a proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair will decide the outcome of the proposal.
- This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the W3C Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires.
Patent Policy
This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (5 February 2004 Version). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis.
For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation.
About this Charter
This charter for the WebOnt Working Group has been created according to section 6.2 of the Process Document. In the event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Sandro Hawke, Proposed Staff Contact
Copyright© 2007 W3C ® (MIT , ERCIM , Keio), All Rights Reserved.
$Date: 2007/06/07 08:25:53 $
This is $Revision: 1.33 $.
This is a draft being prepared for submission to the W3C Advisory Committee. It may change at any time.
Please send comments (noting revision number) as follows:
We're aiming for an Activity Proposal to go to the AC for formal review in early July.
Major Remaining Issues
What should the group be named? (WebOnt? OWL? OWL Extensions?)
Where should we do the work on tractable fragments and "owl tiny" (references needed). In a second phase of this WG? As a parellel effort by this WG? In a different WG running in parellel ("OWL Fragments WG")? In a different WG to be chartered at some point in the future?