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

Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:35:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4717997A.7000908@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

i also have not been able to attend telecons to date since i had air 
travel schedule prior to the scheduling of those 2 telecons. thus 
apologies also for not getting this in earlier.

i also support this position that we hold document publications until 
after the first f2f.
i also do not feel that there is enough wg review to publish and in fact 
i voiced the interest in having the documents be updates to the existing 
owl documents  and not appear to be totally new documents at
the owl experiences and directions meeting in athens.
i still think this is an important point for acceptance and still stand 
behind my offer to help take a lead role in doing that at least on the 
overview and participate in the other documents where i was an 
editor/author on owl 1.0.


Jim Hendler wrote:
> 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 17:36:06 UTC

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