- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:07:11 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 24 Oct 2007, at 15:57, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [snip] > [[ > 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: http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=12 This is a very minimal piece of research. I.e., go to the owl wg home page: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group Under "inputs" click "Issues" then "issues list" to get to: http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/list 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. [snip] > [[ > 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. [snip] There wasn't. The person just enumerated their general positions. Generally, I mark proposals with the word "Proposal". Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 17:06:01 UTC