W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: WOLREQS: Draft requirements document

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:25:47 -0500
Message-ID: <3C239ACB.12382CEB@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
CC: herman.ter.horst@philips.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, ned.smith@intel.com, connolly@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-archive@w3.org
Deborah,

I cannot guarantee that writeups will make it into the submission; I
don't want to include requirements that do not have the support of the
majority of the group. We will discuss and then vote on each requirement
that someone writes up. I see each writeup as providing more information
so that we can make more informed votes. Therefore, I recommend that the
JUSTIFICATION section of each writeup be especially strong and lucid,
and that it also addresses any concerns that might have been expressed
about the candidate requirement (either via e-mail or in
http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/webont/genreqs.html).

As for ontology explainability, I'm not sure where it fits in. For now,
let's keep it separate it give it the next number, R18.

Jeff

Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> 
> thx jeff for the first pass.
> I wont have time to do anything until we get the KR acceptances out and probably not until late dec.
> I will write up r12 - ontology-based search certainly and after checking email to see if anyone is writing up any others, I will probably write up r9 but wont guarantee it.
> I also want to write up ontology explainability - does that now firt under r13 - ontology querying?  or r15 proof checking?
> 
> before i do the writeup though, is it expected that they will be used in our submission or because they didnt get enough votes is it likely that we will not include them?
> 
> thx,
> d
> 
> Jeff Heflin wrote:
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have attached the draft requirements document for our group. This
> > document includes all of the requirements that had received four or more
> > votes of support in our straw poll. I'd like you to read this document
> > and suggest changes. If any proposed changes are potentially
> > contentious, I'll ask that they be discussed by the group and then put
> > to vote. Note that following candidate requirements are currently
> > omitted:
> >
> > R8. Data Persistence
> > R9. Security
> > R11. Internationalization
> > R12. Ontology-based Search
> > R13. Ontology Querying
> > R15. Proof Checking
> > R16. Trust
> > R17. Tagging
> >
> > If you think one of these should be added, write it up in the same
> > format as the requirements in the attached document and state your case
> > to the group.
> >
> > We need to freeze this document by Jan. 7, so that people can have time
> > to read it before the face-to-face meeting. Since many of us may be away
> > next week, we probably won't have much discussion then. If possible,
> > please read through the document and formulate your opinions. Feel free
> > to post suggestions, but don't expect much response. The following week
> > (Dec. 31 through Jan. 4) we will discuss any issues and make changes to
> > the document. Note, if you are unable to participate between now and
> > Jan. 4 and would feel uncomfortable with your name on a document that
> > that you didn't have a chance to give input on, please let know.
> >
> > Happy holidays,
> > Jeff
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 15:26:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT