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

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 UTC