W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: User Facing Documents

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:53:37 +0000
Message-ID: <472F58A1.9030505@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> I have trouble reconciling this with our initial debate about 
>> publishing WDs and what it means to publish one. Now, perhaps you've 
>> changed your mind about that, which is fine, but I'm unclear where 
>> that leaves other then-like-minded people.
> I have lost the context about my alleged change of mind ... I don't 
> believe it matters.

Ahh - after chatting with Bijan I think I've got it.

I believe the 'change of mind' is:
- with the technical documents I have expressed concern about possible 
misrepresenting of consensus etc.
- with the UFDs I seem totally unbothered about this risk

Of course, there would be some in truth in pointing out that I care a 
lot more about a document being published which I disagree with, than 
one being published to which other people disagree with :)

Of course, to polish my self-image, I can present that as caring more 
about disagreements about normative content, than disagreements about 
'mere' presentation.

With the FPWD of the technical material, I remain of the opinion that it 
is important to at least adequately document the consensus or lack of 
consensus around the design. In a FPWD it is likely that sufficiently 
large disclaimers will suffice.

For FPWD of less technical documents, I tend to feel that it is 
important that they are in sync with some explicit version of the more 
technical docs -
concerning consensus about the style/manner/choice of subject matter 
.... I'm unclear. Is it possible to have a disclaimer:

e.g. one of the fault points appeared to be whether an overview should 
be a short brief OWL 1.1 member submission style overview, or a longer 
more detailed OWL 1.0 style overview.
Is it possible to put a disclaimer:
[[ It is unclear to the WG whether this document would be improved by 
being briefer/longer. Feedback on this issue is particuarly asked for.

Hmmmm ....

Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 17:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC