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

Publication schedule for first public working drafts

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:22:14 +0100
Message-Id: <D68F8CCD-92FC-4344-AA98-C0162D346E03@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

It was resolved at the last telecon that *by the first f2f* we would  
publish as first public working drafts (1stWD) roughly the following  
three OWL 1.1 documents:

	Structural Specification
	Formal Semantics
	RDF Mapping

Which, together, comprise the core specification of the language,  
i.e., they are together sufficient to implement of parsers,  
reasoners, editors, etc. and rigorous enough to support  

I imagine we will transition *all* the OWL 1.1 specs to W3C space  
fairly soon. That doesn't make them WDs. Generally, such versions are  
called "Editor's drafts" and they are not intended to reflect *any*  
general will of the WG.

Working Drafts *do not* signal that the WG endorses all aspects (or  
*any* aspects) of those drafts, but merely that the WG thought they  
were publication worthy.

I propose that we publish these three documents as first public WDs  
in the next few weeks for the following reasons:
	1) It meets the heartbeat requirement and establishes a good  
publishing pace.
	2) It provides a clear transition from the webont.org space to W3C  
		People are *continually reviewing* the OWL 1.1 specs. For example,  
see this thread:
	I want to encourage as much feedback as possible and to continue the  
very open process that OWLED and OWL 1.1 have enjoyed thus far.  
People should have a clear target for their ongoing review. I know  
some WG members have qualms about various aspects of the current  
drafts (e.g., like Jeremey expressed in the Telecon about the RDF  
Mapping). So will *non-members*. On thing that focuses reviewer  
attention is WD publication. While we, as a group, are getting up to  
speed on the documents, we should be encouraging *other people* to do  
so as well and to make their thoughts about the documents know to us.
	This is why I object to the whole notion of first doing an "internal  
review" as suggested by Vipul during the telecon. We want lots of  
feedback *now*, before we start mucking with the documents as a  
group. We want that feedback to be ongoing. And, as I said, the  
documents are already public, with a year and a half's worth of  
effort trying to get people to look at them :)

Remember, that we have significant existing implementations (TopBraid  
Composer, Protege4, OWLSight, Pellet, FaCT++, etc.) which use these  
documents. So saying very clearly, "HEY, we're starting work on these  
documents! Pay attention!", (which is what the FPWD publishing event  
says very clearly) is wise.

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 18:21:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC