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

Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:28:41 -0400
Message-Id: <85E5DC56-7BF3-4243-8A76-B0A1878448B6@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

For what it is worth, and apologies for "dropping" this on people,  
but the telecons are scheduled at a time I cannot be there (I teach a  
semantic web class from 1-3:30  US East Coast time Wednesdays), I do  
NOT approve of moving the docs to Working draft at this point-- the  
charter specifies the OWL 1.1 documents as inputs to our WG, and thus  
their importance has been flagged.  I believe that moving them to WG,  
no matter what we put in the status section, would imply more support  
than I am willing to endorse at this point in time.  Rather, I would  
suggest that we simply skip Bijan's first step below, and hold all  
document publications until after the first f2f -- the group is still  
forming, the documents have already been flagged for attention, but I  
don't feel the level of WG review to date merits WG publication.
  If I'd know specifically that this was going to be discussed I'd of  
sent this before the telecon.
  -Jim H.



On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> I was thinking about this a bit more, and I have a bit longer  
> schedule proposal for the core trio.
>
> 	Oct:
> 		Publish first WD with body text verbatim but with appropriate  
> disclaimers.
>
> 	By first f2f:
> 		we clear all current editorial issues (typos, the unclarity of  
> the conditions on roles, etc.) or any others we fine, and by the  
> end of the first f2f we identify parts of the documents which are  
> controversial. We decide at the first F2F to publish fresh  
> documents with the fixes and clear flags for the controversial bits.
>
> 	Thereafter,
> 		as we clear reasonable chunks of contentious issues, we publish  
> new WDs to reflect that.
>
> I'm thinking it would be nice to have markers akin to what's in the  
> HTML5 drafts, see:
> 	http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/
>
> (Look at the "big issue" text, which is red and in a box.)
>
> So, for example, in the RDF Mapping document, a clear contentious  
> issue is the use of reification for annotated axioms, both in  
> general, and in the particular way it's done. I'd like that the  
> second WD of that document either have changed/confirmed that  
> (because the WG has consensus by then...highly unlikely, IMHO), or  
> we flag it brightly with a link to a raised issue about it.
>
> I also think that by the first f2f it would be nice to have  
> gathered up existing implemention and user feedback. Publishing an  
> early WD gives us something sensible, post-submission, to point to.  
> (I.e., "Hey implementors, Hey users, please look at the first WD  
> and let us know any problems you have.:")
>
> So, to reiterate, my main reason for pubbing first wds early is to  
> solicit as wide review as early as possible and to get reviewers of  
> older versions to refresh their reviews.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:29:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT