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

Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <49A137DB.8010906@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

concerning the roadmap section, my recollections on the status of 
documents is a bit different. AFAIK, the WG has decided:

- the features and rationale is a normative document (ie, rec track)
- the quick reference is rec track
- conformance and test cases is rec track

For all these cases the text at least suggests that these are not rec 
track documents. Indeed, the reading is that only the documents listed 
in the bulleted items are rec track a.k.a. normative (and they all 
indeed are at the moment!)

Based on the LC comments the WG might decide to reconsider some of these 
statuses, but that is the current situation in my recollection. I may 
have a bad memory, though, all warranty is lost over 50 (which is 
certainly my case:-)

I am o.k. with the generic Abstract text. I think the version for the 
syntax document should be finalized after our discussions at the f2f on 
the 'naming' issues.



Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Hi:
> I have put together a revised abstract preamble that does not define OWL
> 2 as a diff from OWL 1 (as suggested by Ivan).  I've also put together a
> terse document guide that could go at the beginning of documents.  
> I've put both of these up in the drafting area for LC comment 10, at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
> peter


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 22 February 2009 11:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC