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

UCR document

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:36:18 -0400
Message-Id: <C76F33CF-12C5-4998-9F2E-F70068195F9A@cs.rpi.edu>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I have been asked by people in a couple of organizations to go public  
with some comments I have made off line.
The charter for this Working Group [1] says:

> The working group will deliver an Extended Web Ontology Language  
> (OWL 1.1) specification as a W3C Recommendation. The specification  
> will include (at least) the following components.
> ...
> Requirements:
>     A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated  
> the design of OWL 1.1.
>


I realize that some in the WG don't feel this means that all of the  
documents specified must be rec track, but I and several other members  
of the AC who asked for these documents to be included at the time of  
chartering clearly expect that the overall recommendation will include  
all of the components in some form or another.  As the WG has decided  
to make several of these  into separate documents, I would clearly  
expect those documents to be rec track.

This is not meant to be a process argument at this point in time,  
rather to say that to a number of people in the W3C AC these were  
important things and thus deciding not to make them rec track s a  
decision that should be made carefully, and the WG should be prepared  
with a strong argument to counter negative feedback if the decision is  
made not to include these in the Rec Track document set.

I was making these comments with respect to the Requirements document,  
but I note that I would encourage the WG to move to Rec Track ALL of  
the documents specified in the charter

  Jim Hendler
   AC Rep
   RPI





[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 14:36:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 October 2008 14:36:56 GMT