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

Re: Publication proposal discussion summary

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20071024.122716.200253371.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

OK, now I have some notion of what it would take to lift your "hold".
Before I didn't, and didn't know what to do to advance the possibility
of publication.

peter


From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Publication proposal discussion summary
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:24:10 -0400

> Peter,
>    As I've stated before, WG review, discussion of the issues I and  
> others have raised, a better feel that the design that would add so  
> many new terms to OWL (almost double what is there now) is the right  
> way to go.  Ian and Alan have suggested a proposal to do just that  
> and thus I support it.  I think it is the correct way to go and would  
> take very strong convincing that any other direction makes sense at  
> this point.  Arguing hypotheticals about what would change my mind  
> seems useless to me, esp. when such a clear way ahead (matching so  
> well w/W3C practice) has been proposed.
>   -JH
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >
> > From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Publication proposal discussion summary
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0400
> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> * Jim expressed opposition to the structural specification *per se*:
> >>> 	<http://www.w3.org/mid/F9A27E86-A5E8-4D40-8E77-
> >>> FE17CF9F0247@cs.rpi.edu>
> >>>
> >>> 	I'm unclear whether this means he objects to its publication for
> >>> review.
> >>
> >> I object to its publication for review prior to further WG discussion
> >> (for now that is "object" in the sense of don't agree, if pushed it
> >> can become "object" in the WG sense, but I hope that won't be
> >> necessary given that there seems to be support for the idea of more
> >> internal review)
> >
> > What would cause you to lift this objection?  Suppose, for example,  
> > that
> > no other WG member objected to publication.  Would that suffice to  
> > show
> > that there has been sufficient discussion?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>    -Jim Hendler
> >
> > peter
> >
> 
> "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 16:36:00 GMT

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