W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Revised submission for ODM available

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:27:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200501121727.MAA18319@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: schreiber@cs.vu.nl, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Note - the time frame is very short given the length of the document.
>
>In two weeks Hp's reviewing effort would be less than what we ideally 
>like. Four weeks would be a little better, and eight weeks would allow 
>significantly better review.
>
>I am currently assuming that the two weeks is non-negotiable, but ...

Since I set the deadline, I should probably comment on this.  As always,
the earlier comments are made, the easier it is for the spec authors to
respond to them.  Things get particularly constrained once the hosting
Task Force recommends adoption.  I had thought that might happen at the
meeting following this month's OMG meeting, but I now think otherwise.  I was
also trying to exploit the expected turn-out of ODM submitters for this 
month's meeting.  This is probably the last time that this group will
meet face-to-face, and that seems the best time to discuss issues with the
document.

Having said all this, this needs to be balanced against that the depth
and completeness of review that a longer review time might yield.  
Personally, if HP is willing to invest the time and effort implied by
Jeremy's email, then the results are probably worth waiting for.  
Furthermore, from an OMG process point of view*, we could probably wait 
until, say, March 7 for the results of this review without delaying ODM 
adoption.  

In conclusion, I suggest that any organization willing to do a more 
thorough review of the ODM spec, go ahead and take the time to do so.
If this yields any comments prior to January 26th, then please send those
to the SWBPD list so that they can be discussed at this month's OMG meeting.


* This new proposed deadline was made without knowledge of the plans/
schedules of the submitters who will have to actually make any changes to 
address issues raised by review comments, so I could easily be wrong
about the effect on the schedule for ODM adoption.

Thanks,
-Evan

Evan K. Wallace - OMG Ontology PSIG chair
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
NIST
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 17:27:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC