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

Re: document pubication schedule

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:13:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20071022.161355.51920544.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Here are my comments on the three options that Jeremy is outlining.

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: document pubication schedule
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:21:51 +0100

> 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

I'm in favour of this one.

> 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.

Let's take a closer look at this option.  If you mean consensus that
each document part is in close to its final form, then I think that this
is way to early to get consensus.  If, however, you mean consensus that
each document part is good enough to publish as a FPWD, then it may be
reasonable to go this route, provided that it can be done reasonably
quickly.  (See http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd
for more information about what W3C thinks is appropriate for a FPWD.)

We have had explicit homework since 12 October to read the OWL 1.1
documents
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0040.html)
and we should have done so even earlier.  Thus it should be possible for
thse who have problems with publishing any part of the three documents
as FPWD to bring forward their problems before the teleconference this
week.  If there are documents with no significant problems then it
should be possible to publish them quickly.

> 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.

I view this as a bad way to spend several months of WG time,
particularly if the technical documents cannot advance while this
document is being worked on.  Remember as well that we are supposed to
be going to Last Call early in August 2008.

I have no problem with members of the WG working on the charter
requirements deliverable in the near future.  (In fact, I think that it
is a good idea to do so.)  I may have some time to devote to this
deliverable, but I don't expect to be spending most of my WG time on
this deliverable.

> 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

peter
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 20:23:38 GMT

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