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

Re: Publication proposal discussion summary

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:33:51 -0400
Message-Id: <F5523F1E-1B60-4E38-A034-59F14F03B450@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

I am not opposed to Bijan's amendment, however, I do feel that  
waiting and publishing the structural and semantic documents together  
would make more sense - the fomalization as a standalone document is  
likely to send a message that the group is "academic" (a scare word  
for some AC's in W3C) and I think it would be easier messaging for  
both (or better all three mentioned so far) to come out at the same  
time.  If the group decides to go forward with what Bijan proposes,  
RPI should be indicated as Abstaining.

On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Alan pointed out to me that there was a subsequent version, or  
> perhaps alternative versions, put forth by the chairs:
> 	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0170.html>
> This is referenced by the agenda:
> 	<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.24/Agenda>
> The main difference is in:
> 	3) We will decide whether to publish some or all of the updated
> documents as First Public Working Drafts either shortly before or
> during the first F2F meeting.
> My proposal is that we decide to publish all 3 documents as soon as  
> technically feasible. The strongest version of this proposal that  
> seems to have no opposition, and some support from people otherwise  
> opposed, is to publish the Formal Semantics document alone as a  
> FPWD as soon as possible, and decide closer to the first F2F  
> whether to publish initial drafts for review of the other two  
> documents (perhaps extensively annotated with issue marking).
> If there is, as I believe, consensus on publishing the Semantics  
> document now, I still think that has the benefits I described. If  
> the chairs would like to put only that part of the question to the  
> group, I have no problem with that, though, I'll point out that I  
> don't agree with the grounds of most of the opposing points.  
> Indeed, I think they are very weak. So my agreement to this change  
> does not reflect my being remotely convinced by the arguments as  
> given. However, it's clear that enough people are very strongly  
> opposed, for whatever reason, that we probably can't get consensus  
> to publish all three. And it seems we've spent enough time. So I  
> would propose a 3' which is:
> 	3') We will publish a FPWD of the formal semantics document as  
> soon as the technical details are cleared. We will decide whether  
> to publish the rest of the core formal documents as First Public  
> Working Drafts either shortly before or
> during the first F2F meeting.
> If people are strongly opposed to this friendly amendment, I urge  
> you to just say so. I don't think further elaboration is necessary  
> or perhaps even helpful at this point. I'll not strongly press  
> falling back to 3.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

"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 Wednesday, 24 October 2007 14:34:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC