Re: OWL-WG in exile (was Re: errors in Turtle examples)

On August 8, 2014 11:00:33 AM EDT, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Dear Simon,
>
>I am not an expert on W3C process, but I imagine that it will be
>challenging to get support for this activity.
>

Indeed, the problem with this plan is finding many W3C members who think it's worth their time.    The process doesn't really support "shell" WG's.

To look at it a little differently, it will still take a non trivial amount of time.   Are you sure it's worth it?  

I don't think Ian or I currently have time to put this together, but if someone else is, I'm happy give them some guidance.

    - Sandro (was W3C staff contact for OWL WG)

>Regards,
>Ian
>
>
>On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:23, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are enough small but important changes and corrections needed
>to various OWL documents that it might be worth chartering up a shell
>WG, with a stub charter to 
>> 
>>  • OWL 2.0.1 : Prepare a §7.6.2 class 3 modified recommendation
>incorporating current errata, clarifying behavior WRT RDF/1.1 simple
>literals, etc. 
>>  • OWL 2.1    : Propose changes to OWL that involving the addition of
>new features, or deprecation of existing features based on experience
>with OWL 2.0. 
>> 
>> The shell WG could receive what are believed to be fully-baked,
>consensus documents, developed in an open, traceable manner (e.g. in a
>github repo and possibly reusing the existing public-owl-wg mailing
>list). 
>> 
>> Once a document is hits rough consensus+running code, the WG chair
>could ask to publish it as an FWD followed immediately by LC (meets). §
>7.4.1. does not prohibit this).  The threshold for failing an LC should
>be lower than usual.   If LC passes, the specs should advance to
>proposed (since there should have been implementation before the formal
>process initiates).  
>> 
>> 
>> Simon

Received on Saturday, 9 August 2014 10:30:38 UTC