- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:44:47 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Most issues are now either ACCEPTED, REJECTED, RESOLVED or POSTPONED (the latter 3 categories all being for closed issues); the few remaining REPORTED issues are cases where we are waiting for some clarification before deciding whether to accept. Can issue posters please respect the conventions outlined in [1]. After a new issue is added to the list the chairs will decide whether to accept it. Hopefully this will be done in a more timely manner now that the initial flurry of issues has been dealt with. Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues On 30 Nov 2007, at 16:04, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > I thought that we were following the convention that when an issue > is first added to the issues list it is "REPORTED", and discussion > is limited to clarification. > > I believed that the chairs were gradually deciding which issues to > mark as "ACCEPTED" at which point more free-ranging discussion > might take place. > > If we have been following this convention it has been more followed > in the breach. > > e.g. As far as I can see we have established that there are > differences of opinion about the metamodel and ISSUE-82 is, indeed, > an issue. > > I believe we have (informally) agreed that the editors will reflect > this appropriately in the appropriate document. > > Until the chairs are happy to declare the issue fully open, by > marking it as ACCEPTED, I have been trying not to muddy the waters > further by making any comment. > > (Obviously shortly after an issue has been raised it can be helpful > for some comments so we know who stands where, and roughly why ...) > > Jeremy > > > >
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 15:44:59 UTC