W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Web Ontology Working Group - Response to "call for implementations"

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:28:22 -0500
Message-Id: <200401021628.i02GSMhn002399@roke.hawke.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Just to clarify, this is *not* what I'm going to be talking about on
Monday.  The timing is an odd coincidence.  My focus will be on how
WebOnt (and to a lesser extent RDF Core) used public test results to
monitor and guide implementations, get through CR, the software /
systems architecture we used, and test-driven development.

     -- sandro

> In response to the Call for Implementations with respect to QA 
> documents, and particularly in response to your request to our 
> Working Group for a Case Study [1], the Web Ontology Working Group 
> has produced the following case study.  The Working Group has 
> reviewed this case study and approved sending it  to you [2].  Also, 
> largely  based on the results of this case study, the WG has approved 
> some consensus comments on your documents, these will be sent in a 
> separate email.
>   Jim Hendler, WOWG Co-Chair, for the Working Group
> [1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0076.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Dec/0095.html
> *****
> QAF-OPS Case Study for OWL
> The following is a case study documenting the quality assurance
> activities undertaken by the Web Ontology working group during
> development of the OWL language. It is structured as a conformance

Received on Friday, 2 January 2004 11:25:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:34 UTC