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

Re: Manchester syntax track

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:44:03 +0000
Message-Id: <940596FE-C43A-4925-9901-EB4AFC086C16@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 9 Dec 2008, at 19:11, Sandro Hawke wrote:
[snip]
>     RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester
>     Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the  
> future
>     we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (ISSUE-139).
>
>             -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/ 
> 2008-08-27#resolution_4
>
> Nonetheless, it was my understanding (not remembering that resolution)
> that it would be a NOTE, so I wrote in the SOTD last week:
>
>     The Working Group expects this document, when done, to be a  
> Working
>     Group Note, not a W3C Recommendation. As expressed in the document
>     conformance clause, OWL systems are not required to read or write
>     this syntax.
>
>            -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-manchester- 
> syntax-20081202/
>
> I apologize if I did so in error.

I guess, procedurally, the only question is whether this SOTD  
precluded a call for exclusions. IIRC (and I'm going off the cuff)  
there needs to be a 90 day period for members to respond to a call  
for exclusions, thus, if this SOTD meant that that call didn't go  
out, then we maybe artificially precluding a rec track option (since  
we might run out of time).

> We should talk about this soon and
> make a proper decision.

Indeed.

> When Alan and Ian and I were planning this agenda, it seemed to us  
> like
> the User Facing Documents could be decided at the same time (as you
> requested), but there was no need for Manchester to be in that set.

I agree entirely.

> The
> reasoning about whether it is Rec track or not seems different,  
> since it
> has normative content.

Yes.

> Procedurally, I'd rather not try to change the agenda at this point,

That's fine.

> especially since both Ian and Alan are (rather suddenly) expecting  
> to be
> out this week.  I'm planning to chair the meeting, unless one of them
> has another last-minute change of plans and can chair after all.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm fine with no agenda change. I do  
ask for the further clarification as to whether the exclusion issue  
is an issue.

Also, I would be interested in what people thought? As I said, I see  
arguments both ways, but have been getting a bit more pro-rec-track  
feedback than I was before.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 19:41:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 December 2008 19:41:04 GMT