W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Acknowlegment glitch

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:49:38 +0100
Message-Id: <9EE2F486-BAEC-4709-A4B9-D830782C4955@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
I changed the sentence to say:

"This document has been produced by the OWL Working Group (see  
below), and its contents reflect extensive discussions within the  
Working Group as a whole. "

No doubt people will let me know if they object to this change :-)

I think that all the documents should use the standard form of  
acknowledgements section as delineated by Sandro below. I not that  
the following documents don't do so:

Overview
Primer (but still work in progress)
Man Syntax (but not rec track)
n-ary (but not rec track)

Some of the others also miss the special thanks to reviewers part due  
to the lack of reviewing to date -- presumably this will soon change.

It wasn't obvious to me why Overview didn't use the standard form  
(other than the fact that some of the content is already there in the  
introduction) so I changed it -- we can always change back if someone  
has a persuasive "special case" argument.

Ian



On 31 Mar 2009, at 13:54, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> I believe that the following sentence in the acknowledgments sections
>> of our document is inappropriate:
>>
>> """This document is the product of the OWL Working Group (see below)
>> whose members deserve recognition for their time and commitment."""
>>
>> I don't recall ever seeing such a statement in an acknowledgments.
>> Isn't the actually acknowledgement sufficient?
>
> +1 re that sentence being reworded to not thank ourselves.
>
> Note that we have several templates here.  The standard form of
> acknowledgements, I think, is:
>
> ================
> {{:Shared_Acknowledgments}}
> The editors extend special thanks to ...
> for ....
>
> {{:Regular_attendees}}
> {{:Past_Members}}
> ================
> and the text you're referring to is in the first,
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Shared_Acknowledgments
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Past_Members
>
>      -- Sandro
>
>
>> See:
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ack
>>
>> ""'This document reflects the joint effort of the members of the RDF
>> Core Working Group. Particular contributions were made by Jeremy
>> Carroll, Dan Connolly, Jan Grant, R. V. Guha, Graham Klyne, Ora
>> Lassilla, Brian McBride, Sergey Melnick, Jos deRoo and Patrick
>> Stickler."""
>>
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>> """This document is the result of extensive discussions within the
>> Web Ontology Working Group as a whole. The participants in this
>> Working Group included:"""
>>
>>
>>
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-Acknowledgements
>>
>> """This specification was developed and approved for publication by
>> the W3C XSL Working Group (WG). WG approval of this specification
>> does not necessarily imply that all WG members voted for its
>> approval. The current members of the XSL WG are:"""
>>
>> Why do we need to *say* that we deserve recognition just before
>> giving that recognition? Seems a bit self-praising.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:50:27 GMT