Re: Restarting and structuring the ontology discussion

From: Chris Bizer <>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:37:07 +0200

Hi all,

> At this point I feel kinda lost (and I sense I'm not the only one), so
> Ryan, Chris, I think it would be wonderful if some of you could wrap up
> the current status of the discussion and indicate the URLs where we can
> find the current state of the work.

I'm back from my holiday and had a look at the mails posted in the last 10
I will try a short summary of our current status. Please add whatever I have
forgotten and object if I declare something fixed that hasn't been agreed

Project name: Fresnel

1. Requirements Analysis
1.1 Status
There is an ongoing discussion about the requirements. First results are
found at: Additional
requirements have been posted by David Huynh:
It is unclear which of these requirements are in-scope and out of scope.
There is agreement that editing data is out of scope.
1.2. Next steps
Think about a mechanism to agree on a fixed set of requirements. Any

2. Lens Vocabulary
2.1. Status
The current proposal for the lens vocab is found at:
The namespace is
It is currently discussed if the lens vocab should be extended for:
2.1.1 Missing properties: Ryan, Chris and Emmanuel opt for a sequence of
alternatives, if a property is missing, which is expressed using RDF and not
RDF path. David (and Stefano??) seam to object arguing that this is a job
for the data integration layer.
2.1.2 Combinations of properties: Ryan, Chris and Emmanuel opt for the
possibility to combine similar properties on the display layer e.g. dc:name
and foaf:name. This shouldn't be expressed using RDF path.
2.1.3. Mechanisms for defining what not to show (Pro: Emmanuel and Ryan).
2.1.4. Summary functions like count() avg() and sum() (Pro: David Huynh and
Chris, Contra: Stefano?)
2.1.5. Sorting: Should the lens or the style vocab or the browser handle
sorting? How?

2.2. Next steps
Unclear. I could draft a proposal for the above issues in the next days.
Does anybody else like to draft extensions to the current second draft?

3. Style Vocabulary
3.1. Status
The current proposal for the style vocab is found at:
The namespace is

3.2. Next steps
Unclear. Any proposals? How likes to extend/review the current proposal?

4. RDF Path
4.1. Status
We have collected the different proposals for RDF path languages. I used
some pseudo-RDF path in my FOAF example Mark and Emmanuel
opt for forming a separate W3C task force for this.
4.2. Next steps
We need to select the features from the different proposals that we need and
write a specification.

So lots of work. I think I would be good if people would explicitly pick
work packages and announce on the list on which packages they are planning
to work. What do you think?


> Thanks.
> --
> Stefano Mazzocchi
> Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C
> 77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096
> Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 15:36:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:17 EDT