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

Re: Manchester syntax track

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:22:20 -0500
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5732.1228854140@ubuhebe>


> >     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.
...
> 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.

I just checked with two experts (without putting a whole lot of brain
power into it), and we're still not sure.  I think the path forward is
to try to address this soon, and if we decided it is Rec Track, then
figure out how the Call For Exclusions gets sent out.

(As it turns out, the CFE got sent out by accident, and then retracted,
because I incorrectly worded the text used by the system to determine if
a CFE is necessary.)

> 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.

My sense is that making it Rec Track would amount to the WG saying
"everyone who wants a human-readable serialization for OWL 2 SHOULD use
the Manchester Syntax."  Even if, in their text, our documents
explicitely disclaims this idea, the word "Recommendation" carries too
much weight to avoid this reading.    And I don't think the WG wants to
say that, but I could be wrong.

     -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 20:23:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 December 2008 20:23:01 GMT