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

Re: OWL Documents and new WG (was Re: New draft charter (was Re: Responses to "Draft of charter for NextWebOnt (Proposed) Working Group"))

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:11:56 +0000
Message-Id: <9D396970-D8F7-4C33-A642-BFA8C6C42CAE@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>

On 16 Jan 2007, at 22:36, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Below is an excerpt of Bijan's long reply

Working on terseness :)

> on this thread in response to my earlier comments about the OWL  
> documents (his email in while is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/ 
> Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/0029)
[snip]
>  So I guess this boils down to expressing some concerns, and saying  
> that experience tells me that a group with a one year charter, no  
> f2f meetings, and a large charter scope is likely to either not  
> meet its goals or to end up being extended past the year.  As Dan  
> Connolly said elsewhere, setting expectations right is important.   
> And this is not just to WG participants - if after 18 months this  
> group is still working, there will be critics who say "see that  
> Semantic Web stuff is too researchy" and that's also a problem with  
> evetual adoption...
[snip]

I'm afraid I still don't see why you think the charter scope is  
large. Things are in an advanced state: the bulk of design is  
basically done, with all of the core bits having plausible second or  
*third* drafts (starting from a year ago); people have been beating  
on it; we have first cuts of multiple implementations of editors and  
reasoners available since November (with next iterations due soon);  
people have been beating on them. It feels like we're closer to a  
second year of a working group *right now*.

The charter also allows for the dropping of *functionality* (and some  
tasks) in order to make progress, so if some features are putting the  
schedule at risk (e.g., because documenting them is proving  
difficult), then we can drop them. As you suggested, we already  
updated the charter to allow for up to 3 f2f meetings if these are  
needed to in order to accelerate the rate of progress.

Of course there is no question that there is risk involved, as with  
any working group. Reasonable risk, IMHO, but risk, nevertheless.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 19:11:46 GMT

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