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

Re: profiles and the rec track

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:43:31 +0000
Message-Id: <6687DC87-3248-445A-9120-6D2C443C5CC2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

On 28 Jan 2009, at 16:20, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Bijan absolutely correctly points out that I am being inconsistent  
> with my earlier position that all the deliverables should end up  
> rec track.  I freely admit that.

BTW, I don't think we should hold such inconsistency "against you". I  
just wanted to understand the reasons from departure from the earlier  
position.

Positions evolve, after all.

But I still think that the points you raised before exist. I.e., if  
we might face AC opposition for not RECing NF&R, don't we run the  
same risk for Profiles? In other words:

"""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 understand your argument, I think, but  is it strong enough so that  
we can make it through the AC *without* Profiles? Especially as it's  
a change to the technical deliverables and not to the documentation  
(as would be the case with NF&R)?

Would we have to do another last call? Of what? If they had been  
embedded in Syntax, then that would be clear.

What do we do to the people who expressed strong LC positive  
feedback? Let them know we're dropping them and ask for their reaction?

I don't have any experience of this.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:40:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:40:07 GMT