LC2 Responses/JC1

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll

Dear Jeremy,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0012.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

The Working Group feels that using a separate namespace for some or all of the new features of OWL 2 or using a different name for OWL 2 itself would be confusing to the vast majority of Semantic Web users, even those who might not use all these new features.

The Working Group believes that all of the new features in OWL 2 are adequately supported. Much of this support is documented in the recently revised New Features and Rationale document with working draft available at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale

The Working Group will therefore not be making any changes to the design or branding of OWL 2 nor to the OWL 2 documents in response to your comment.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment, and whether you would like us to record you as Formally Objecting to the advancement of OWL 2 along the W3C Recommendation Track. (Note that according to the W3C Process, Formal Objections are made by individuals, not organizations.)

Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



In the first last call we seemed to reach a difference of opinion concerning the overall design.

I register a formal objection on behalf of TopQuadrant, based on our comments:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0053.html

In particular: [[ An alternative, possibly better approach to addressing this comment, might be to rebrand most, if not all, of the new features of OWL2, as "Web-SROIQ", and put them in a separate namespace, not branded as OWL, so that the (vast) majority of Semantic Web users for whom these features are neither useful nor helpful, but merely confusing, can rest more easily in ignoring them. Notice the choice of name for the rebranding does not include the string "OWL". ]]

Jeremy Carroll, AC Rep, TopQuadrant, Inc.