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

Re: postponed issues (was Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday October 24, 2007)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:30:51 -0400
Message-Id: <2D6C3F2C-F0C9-4A7A-BD9F-57E87DAAA00F@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>

I've started a page http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ 
HowIssuesAreProcessed initialized from Sandro's proposal.

Let's aim for making the page reflect the final policy.

-Alan

On Oct 23, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>
> Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> I switched to raise because this seemed to be consistent with past
>> usage (see, e.g., WebOnt issues list [1]), and because propose sounds
>> to much like PROPOSED. My proposal (oops) is that issues be *raised*
>> and subsequently either *accepted* or *rejected*. Once accepted, an
>> issue becomes *open* until it has been *resolved* by the WG. As I
>> understand it, all open issues will need to be resolved eventually,
>> even if the resolution is only to postpone them. I would, however,
>> welcome an official ruling on all this from Sandro.
>
> I don't think there's any official W3C position on this kind of stuff.
> I can ask around for other people's experiences, but I think it's  
> really
> up to you and Alan as chairs to decide (with input from the WG) what
> will work for this WG.
>
> I think your terminology here is fine, although if I had to decide,  
> I'd
> probably steer away from "raise" entirely, now that the ambiguity has
> surfaced.  I don't have a problem with "proposed", in that I see it  
> as a
> proposal to open an official issue.  How about "reported", in the  
> sense
> of bug-reports and also the sense of something being "reportedly"  
> true.
>
>    - an issue is reported
>    - it may be rejected or accepted
>    - if accepted it's "open"
>    - then it becomes "closed" by being resolved or postponed.
>
> *shrug*
>
>     - Sandro
>
>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2007, at 18:30, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We discussed this in the first teleconf [1] and agreed that,
>>>> rather than migrating these (probably mostly irrelevant) issues,
>>>> WG members who want to champion an issue from the WebOnt list
>>>> should simply raise an appropriate new issue.
>>>
>>> Argh. Here I go nitpicking. Ian, you've written "raise" an issue
>>> several times today. In the telecon we talked about proposing
>>> issues (say, in the google code issue list) and the fact that
>>> chairs have discretion about which proposed issues are "raised".
>>> (This is Sandro's distinction. In my lexicon, raise =
>>> sandro:propose and open = sandro:raise.)
>>>
>>> This is important because only chairs can sandro:raise/open issues
>>> and they are not required to sandro:raise/open all issues that the
>>> WG participants raise/sandro:propose.
>>>
>>> Can we pick a terminology and stick with it? :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bijan.
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 03:31:03 GMT

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