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

RE: A comment on the Primer draft, part 1 Introduction

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:35:18 -0500
To: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <w3t-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <09b701c8607c$7e5eeaa0$4ddc0681@MEL.NIST.GOV>


+1, in grumpy or non-grumpy variations as required.  :)

Conrad


-----Original Message-----
From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jim Hendler
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:46 PM
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Bijan Parsia; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; OWL Working Group WG;
w3t-archive@w3.org
Subject: Re: A comment on the Primer draft, part 1 Introduction

I am unsure of the status of this document - my previous understanding was
that it was being shown as an example of what the technology would allow
(i.e. diferent syntax options) now it seems to be being reviewed as a WG
document.  I have many issues with it, Ivan notes a couple below, and I have
others -- but the key thing is I have not seen a WG dicussion of this
approach to the primer, nor discussion of whether a single document like
this complies to the charter.  So somehow it has gone from an experiment in
documentation to being discussed as a proposed document.  I don't know if it
is proposed as rec track or not, and I don't see appropriate discussion of
its relation to the OWL 1.0 documents that it proposes to replace (the
Guide, for example, is more comprehensive than this).
 Traditionally one does not review a document until the WG has reached some
consensus that they want that document to exist - and I don't see that
discussion having been resolved at this point.  
 I'm sorry if I seem obstructionist, but I believe things are being pushed
through this WG way faster, and with less consensus than WG process would
seem to indicate, and I believe that organizations that are in the minority
are not being appropriately listened to.  My organization has made this
concern in private to the WG chair, and in this case I wish to explain, in
public, why I am unhappy with the way the documents outside of the OWL 1.1
submission, although mandated by our charter, are not being appropriately
discussed.  
 So, in light of the above,  I want to make it clear that:
  I believe the Working Group is reviewing a document that has not been
appropriately discussed or developed via the W3C process, nor do I yet see
compelling evidence that this document is compliant with the WG charter. 
  -Jim Hendler
  AC rep
  RPI
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2008 00:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 27 January 2008 00:36:29 GMT