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

Re: document pubication schedule

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:38:37 +0100
Message-Id: <C30EB65B-1287-4370-B881-40B115D27C95@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov

On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:48 PM, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> Jeremy described some options for a publication schedule
> for first Working Drafts.  Here are my thoughts:
>
>> 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 was originally lukewarm to this option, now I object to it.  What  
> value
> is there in re-publishing these documents?
[snip]

Please look at my original post making the proposal:
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0079.html>

It lays out some reasons. I have thought of others (e.g., gets us  
through the publishing process).

See this post from an experienced W3Cer for a similar view:
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0248.html>

It does no harm, I believe, to have a clear starting point and has  
the potential to do some good that is relatively difficult to get any  
other way (i.e., wide early review). I believe our schedule indicates  
a need for some high level of efficiency, so this is a low cost way  
to get the wider public's input which, I believe, will overall make  
our job easier. Of course, there are a number of ways it might go  
wrong, but I think it's pretty clear that these are unlikely and  
easily repaired. Lost time is less easy to repair.

Bye the bye, most working drafts are *not* consensus documents, if by  
this one means, as it seems to be suggested, that the design is  
endorsed by all, or, indeed, any, of the working group. Furthermore,  
most WGs I've been involved with continue work on the documents right  
after publishing them, since they are *working* drafts, not any sort  
of final draft or commitment.

If people disagree with the goals or think they are unlikely or have  
some cost, that's fine. I'm interested to hear such. But please,  
let's discuss what I proposed and the reasons I gave.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 00:38:52 GMT

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