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

Re: agenda for UFDTF

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:49:39 -0500
Message-Id: <653541E5-2283-40C5-A618-A292E3BFC92E@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Before starting to focus on specific doccuments, I wonder if we could  
discuss what goals/styles/audiences we would like to reach. The focus  
of that discussion, at least to start with,  would be to collect the  
possibilities, rather than arguing that one or the other choice is  
undesirable.

-Alan


On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
> start time half hour before telecon, Wed.
>
> 1730 UTC, 09:30AM (West US), 12:30PM (East US),
> 17:30 (London), 18:30 (Paris)
>
> 1) time of next meeting
> suggestion:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0114
> London         20:00
> New York       15:00
> Silicon Valley 12:00
> Korea          05:00 Fri :(
>
>
> 2) which docs could we/should we start now?
>
>   a) overview ala 1.0
>        Deb has indicated enthusiasm for this one
>
>   b) overview ala member submission
>        Bijan and Peter have indicated enthusiasm
>
>   c) use cases and requirements with traceability matrix linking  
> requirements and OWL 1.1 features
>        Jeremy and Vipul have indicated enthusiasm
>
> ==============================
> End of agenda
> =============
>
> Some points about item 2:
> =========================
> I think there is an obvious conflict between doing a) and b) i.e.  
> while b) could be done as the opening section of an a) type  
> document; it makes no sense to do both as two separate docs.
>
> I am unclear whether Peter or Bijan is prepared to own (b) if  
> necessary.
>
> I believe Deb is prepared to own (a) but would prefer clarity that  
> this is understood to be a WD route document before she starts.
>
> Vipul and I are keen to start working on (c) and believe that the  
> final format can be sorted out later.
>
>
> Possible considerations under 2
>
> - who do we want to read and review the documents?
> - who do we want to be writing the documents?
>
>
> Deliberately not on agenda
> ==========================
> but still open
>
> What is the format in which we expect public to review these  
> documents:
>   Jeremy has argued for Working Draft
>   Bijan             for on Wiki
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 20:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT