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

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

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:04:10 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660902230504i336e4617t6cda7919ae6660fa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
2009/2/23 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> Peter,
>
> we have to check this today or tomorrow. My recollection that NC&R is on rec
> track and so is QRG. We may want to change that, discuss this, but that is
> another matter...

YES,
I was absent during the vote (because of electricty failure) but read
the Resolution in the Minutes of 10 December 2008

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-12-10

BTW small typo:s/NC&R / NF&R !

> As for the term 'normative' vs rec-track: for the general audience these two
> terms will largely mean the same. Ie, non-using these terms essentially
> interchangeably will lead to confusion in my view.
>
> Ivan
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> --
>
> 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
>



-- 
Christine
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 13:04:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 February 2009 13:04:45 GMT