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

Re: Votes to advance documents to LC and CR

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:48:26 -0400
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <31364.1242740906@ubehebe>

> we have been trying to decide how we will vote on these -- I'd like to
> remind the WG that a move to CR includes a decision about the specific
> exit criterion - 
...
> p.s. for those who are looking for this in the process document, "exit
> criteria" are known as "Criteria for entrance to Proposed 
> Recommendation" 

As I read the Process Document, it doesn't actually say this, but you're
right that in practice it's something we should probably do.  The guide
for organizing a recommendation track transition [1] says we should
decide, among other things:

    Are there any implementation requirements beyond the defaults of the
    Process Document? For instance, is the expectation to show two
    complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances,
    each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented
    twice in some piece of software?

As I recall, in WebOnt (OWL 1) took the latter option, and framed it in
terms of test cases instead of features.  That is, for each
non-extra-credit test, there had to be at least two implementations
reporting passing that test.   

I like that approach for us to use, too.  It may be that we need to
approve some more tests, to make sure we have at least one test per
feature.  I don't think we need to do that before entering CR (WebOnt
was approving new test cases all through CR), but we'll need some quiet
time at the end, for folks can try to pass the newest tests.

And perhaps we should say something about profiles, too?  I wouldn't
mind us saying that for each profile there will be two "native"
implementations, two systems implementing that profile and taking
advantage of it being less than DL.  (They could take advantage in
whatever sense they like -- performance, ease of implementations, etc.)
I don't think we need to tie that to test cases; it would just be that
our implementation report [2] will have at least two entries for each
native profile (DL, EL, QL, and RL).

Is that what you're looking for, Jim?

> and we think that may influence our decision making -
> when will the proposed CR exit criteria be discussed/published?  We 
> might (and I stress might) be willing to abstain, as opposed to 
> objecting, to some documents depending on the specifics of these 
> criteria - if the upcoming vote is just on whether we believe LC has
> been successfully done, that is one thing, but a formal move to CR is
> another, and these should be discussed.
>   -Jim Hendler
>    AC Rep RPI

Is there some reason to conclude LC without simultaneously moving to CR?
I'm not sure what that would mean.

Can you express, in a sentence or two, the core of the objection you're
considering?  In particular, is it about the technical design of OWL 2
-- some language feature that's hard to implement, not motivated, etc --
or about the user base and market?  Even more in particular, what do you
realistically think the WG could do to address your concerns? 

     -- Sandro


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr#transreq
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 13:48:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC