Teleconference.2008.01.30/Discussion

From OWL
Revision as of 18:37, 28 January 2008 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
  • There are (at least) two aspects to this discussion: Language Fragments, defined in terms of (restrictions on) the (structural) syntax, and Conformance levels, defined in terms of implementation behaviour.
    • Do we understand and agree with this distinction?
  • "Rule based" fragments such as OWLPrime.
    • Review of current status.
    • What are the language fragment and conformance level issues?
  • OWL-Lite
    • Do we want to retain a/the OWL-Lite?
    • Is there a backwards compatibility issue?
    • How would it relate to other fragments?
  • Number of fragments
    • Should we limit the number of fragments?
    • If so, why and to how many?
    • Are some fragments more or less compelling than others (e.g., in terms of implementer experience and utility)?
  • Documentation
    • Should a/the tractable fragments document be REC track?
    • Is the existing tractable fragments document appropriate?
    • Do we need additional user facing documentation for the fragments?