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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090222.101643.36585860.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I was very careful not to mention the recommendation status of any of
the documents in the "Roadmap".  I did explicitly say that several
documents were non-normative, and I believe that these statements are
correct.  I do not believe that there is currently any direct
correspondence between normative and rec-track.  (In fact, I remember
that my attempts to tie these together were not accepted by the working
group.)  Further, I am against any attempt to change the Primer, NC&R,
or the QRG to be normative.

I did not explicitly mention the normative status of the Conformance and
Manchester Syntax documents in the "RoadMap".  This is largely a matter
of forgetting to do so.  

peter


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:43 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 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 15:17:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 February 2009 15:17:10 GMT