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

Re: Publication proposal discussion summary

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:07:11 +0100
Message-Id: <7779E9DC-BC08-4458-B39D-7E7208242227@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On 24 Oct 2007, at 15:57, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [[
> 	B) People expressed the desire for more group review before
> publishing anything. The consequential benefits haven't been clearly
> enumerated to my ken.
> ]]
> Jim argued this most effectively - this is the normal W3C WG  
> process, and there is nothing so strange about this WG that we  
> should behave differently.

That's not a consequential benefit. It would be helpful if you were a  
little more careful in your reading.

> As an example to do with the semantics doc. HP has a view that the  
> n-ary datatypes design (which I guess is in that doc) is broken. We  
> have stated this on a number of occassions. Currently that does not  
> seem to be in an issue list,

A simple query of the issue list reveals:

This is a very minimal piece of research. I.e., go to the owl wg home  

Under "inputs" click "Issues" then "issues list" to get to:

Then search for "n-ary".

It would also be helpful if you were a little less bold with  
unresearched claims. Esp. ones that suggest that people have been  
unresponsive to issues that you've raised.

> [[
> H) I got another email stating that WDs should either reflect the
> state of consensus or be clearly labeled as lacking that.
> ]]
> I hadn't realised there was a proposal not to do this.

There wasn't. The person just enumerated their general positions.

Generally, I mark proposals with the word "Proposal".

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 17:06:01 UTC

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