Registry 8/8/2006: Profile for Web Ontology Committee Draft

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>regarding:
>2006-08-08      www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/download.php/19037/regrep-owl-profile-1.5-July4.pdfReference Document
>
mm1: Asuman, one question I had asked in a previous profile discussion 
was how from a profiling standpoint we may handle the iterative 
development of documents (be it a business process definition, WSDL, XML 
artifacts, or a set of discovery queries).  Not specific to your profile 
but in reviewing it, it lists a series of discovery queries in Section 
6. Was it considered that there would possibly be basic and more 
advanced features considered so as to allow some flexibility for these 
registry capabilities? For example, I could see that even if discovery 
queries (or a subset) may be supported but a user interface is yet to be 
implemented or planned. In the specification of the profile, this is an 
RFC SHOULD requirement. 

Overall and practically speaking, does this infer a need for different 
conformance levels in order to enable adoption and usage?

Secondly, and unrelated, several of the features described in Section 4 
(transitiveness, equivalency etc) are outlined. However, I've seen in 
the world of formalisms - set theory, process matching, pi-calculus, etc 
- there is an element of proof here that is needed and/or required. Do 
we assume these mechanisms operate in the background? Should there be a 
mention of that if true?

Thanks and good work.