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

RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:49:22 -0500
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1b5401c83381$b942ce20$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>


 >  I think the issue for our WG is to do with the documents of this WG,
 >  not the documents of the OMG.  I believe we have decided what to do,
 >  for the FPWD, of *our* documents.

 >  I think Peter demonstrates, at least, plausibly legitimate concerns
 >  about the quality of the ODM documents, and it would be good, when
 >  we come to discuss this issue, after the chairs have opened such
 >  discussion, to be able to have a WG review of those documents.

 >  The timing should be agreed with the chairs, and ODM liasons. An
 >  appropriate procedure may be for the ODM to request a review from
 >  us.

 >  If I have understood Peter, if you agree with even a few of his
 >  points, which (without looking at the document being discussed)
 >  appear to be well-argued, they are of a nature that suggest further
 >  in-depth review of the ODM material is called for. It is
 >  inappropriate to do such review piecemeal in an e-mail joust.

 >  Peter expressed his concerns about the ODM document; you asked him
 >  to justify; he has justified those concerns. Asking him personally
 >  for a full scale review seems an excessive request.

Agreed, I was hoping the discussion would be on the oMG lists.  However,
Peter is saying, as I understand it, that a review of ODM impacts
decisions about the syntax document, and I guess possibly indirectly the
chair's decision on whether to accept the issue (not sure how that works
exactly).  For me, the point is much broader, regarding cross-community
agreement on a metamodel, which is a new concern, since W3C doesn't
normally recommend metamodels.

 > Having written that text, if it is ambiguous, I would like to raise
 > an erratum. I believed that it was clear that there was one subject,
 > one predicate and one object.

The point was more that it's better to codify the intention in a
metamodel than to depend on interpretation of natural language (or an
email from the author).  I wouldn't file an issue against RDF to just
modify a natural language description, since that is a bit of a
never-ending process.

Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 18:50:15 UTC

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