W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Draft of charter for NextWebOnt (Proposed) Working Group

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:56:30 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230952c1cd43d9a2cb@[192.168.0.102]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

At 9:22 AM +0000 1/12/07, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On 11 Jan 2007, at 21:22, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>
>>  At 6:46 PM +0000 1/11/07, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>  I defy the tackiness of being the first person to reply to my own 
>>>message :) but I wrote a blog post about the charter and my 
>>>thinking behind it:
>>>
>>> 
>>>	<http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2007/01/11/a-proposed-draft-charter-for-a-nextwebont-working-group/>
>>>
>>>  Some of this is what went into my thinking about starting the 
>>>OWLED series of workshops as well. Of which there is one coming up 
>>>soon :)
>>>  	<http://owled2007.iut-velizy.uvsq.fr/>
>>> 
>>>	<http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2006/12/31/owled-2007-first-call-for-papersalready/>
>>>
>>>  I really like having something reasonably organized to keep the 
>>>de facto state of the art both *coordinated* and *advancing*, so 
>>>it's especially great to get the participation of tool 
>>>builders/vendors at OWLED. Interoperability is key, after all!
>>>
>>>  Cheers,
>>>  Bijan.
>>
>>  what is the relationship betyween not having f2fs for the WG and 
>>having OWLED workshops ongoing?  As a chair, I will tell you that I 
>>thnk that without f2fs you will not be as able to succeed as you 
>>may think...
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>I also had some misgivings about this, but you will note that the 
>charter says that the WG does not *plan* to have f2f meetings, not 
>that it can't have them. The idea is that if the work of the WG can 
>be accomplished without f2f meetings, it will save considerable 
>resources both for participants and for the W3C.
>
>My recollection of the WebOnt WG is that it was perfectly possible 
>to get work done without f2f meetings, but that they were useful for 
>resolving more contentious issues. If such issues arise, then it may 
>be necessary to ask for a f2f meeting; the (possibly naive) hope is 
>that that it will not be necessary.
>
>Ian
>


personally, I think it may be better to set the expectation that 
there will be a couple of f2fs and then cancel them if not needed - 
otherwise people are much less likely to show up if you do need them 
- think about it.
  -JH
-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Tetherless World Constellation Chair		http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Computer Science Dept			301-405-2696 (work)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst			301-405-6707 (Fax)
Troy, NY 12180
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 13:58:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT