W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-57: errata on OWL 1.0 documents

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:24:36 -0400
Message-Id: <49D2909A-BA76-494E-825E-CAEE821A70E4@gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Can it be closed as postponed, adding the comments Peter and Jeremy  
suggest?
This would leave it to future generations to publish the errata if  
desired.
On literal reading, I don't see publishing errata on the old  
documents as part of this charter, as sensible as it might be.

Perhaps Sandro/Ivan might comment on how such issues have been  
handled in the past.

-Alan

On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-57: errata on OWL 1.0 documents
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:47:03 +0100
>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> I propose to close ISSUE-57 as none of the problematic pieces of
>>> the OWL 1.0 documents survive in the OWL 2 documents.
>>> peter
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> While peter is correct in the observation, the issue also lists a  
>> number
>> of comments which might merit errata against the OWL 1 docs, and I  
>> think
>> this group should at some point consider them, and make errata on the
>> OWL 1 docs as required.
>>
>> i.e. we have some obligation for on-going maintenance of the OWL1  
>> specs,
>> even though our primary task is OWL2.
>
> Is approving errata for the OWL 1 documents in our scope of operations
> at all?  I was assuming that it was not.
>
>> Jeremy
>
> peter
>
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 17:25:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 April 2008 17:25:22 GMT