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

Re: document pubication schedule

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:07:33 -0400
Message-Id: <3C3C503E-BD5C-43CC-9BA1-5EB165ACA11B@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

if it isn't clear already - I'd support, as does Jeremy, Option 3  
over option 2.  I wouldn't support option one at this time
  -JH



On Oct 22, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
>
> We are meant to publish something by early January at the latest.
>
> On the table we have a proposal that we basically publish the three  
> member submission docs.
>
> Given that Jim and Deb both found that the lack of e-mail  
> discussion was a problem - I wanted to go back to square one and  
> try listing options - and seeing which of these options had some  
> clear support.
>
>
> Option 1:
> (from telecon - with clear support)
> Publish member submission documents, with disclaimer indicating  
> that while this are the focus of our discussion they are not yet  
> 'consensus' documents -
> amendment from HP: perhaps not RDF Mapping
>
> Option 2:
> (variant of option 1)
> Publish member submission documents but only those parts for which  
> we already have consensus, with stubs where we don't have consensus  
> yet.
>
> I would expect this to emphasis subproperty chains and QCRs as the  
> two main new consensus features
>
> I doubt that there would be enough consensus over any part of the  
> RDF Mapping doc to make it worth publishing.
>
> Option 3:
> My proposal from the telecon, dropped due to no obvious support at  
> the meeting:
> Start with an OWL 1.1 requirements doc.
> This would have the advantage of taking the possible readership of  
> a FPWD with us; as opposed to the highly technical member  
> submission docs, which are likely to only be meaningfully read by a  
> tiny elite.
>
> Are there other suggestions ... or advocacy?
>
> While my preferences are option 3, then option 2 then option 1 - at  
> the telecon I got the distinct impression that there was no support  
> for anything other than option 1. I am happy to help advocate  
> something else - but not in a minority of one.
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>

"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 Monday, 22 October 2007 18:10:20 GMT

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