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

Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:19:51 +0100
Message-Id: <7E01011D-E2D9-44C6-959A-DD87809F5C16@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>

On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:

> 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.

Jim & Deb: no need to apologize. We didn't discuss the timing  
extensively during the call and I was tasked with raising the issue  
in email. So you're not late at all. The feedback is welcome.

> 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.
[snip]

Deb, at the time, if I recall correctly, you were referring primarily  
to "user facing" documents like the overview, reference, and guide,  
which fall under the "descriptive spec" and "outreach material"  
deliverables.

The current proposal is to publish specs which correspond to the OWL  
1.0 Semantics and Abstract syntax document (i.e., the formal spec  
deliverables. The relevant community there is implementors and spec  
lawyers who, thus far, overall have been pretty positive.

Does your objection hold even there? That is, you think significant  
acceptance issue arise from not deltaing the Semantics and Abstract  
Syntax document?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 19:24:25 GMT

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