W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001

concern with lack of homework participation

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:40:13 -0600
Message-ID: <3C0559BD.B4611AF@w3.org>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I'm concerned that we're not very well prepared
for tomorrow's teleconference.

We are a group of 47 people, but I only
have use cases from 2 or 3 to study in preparation
for tomorrow's teleconference.

I thought maybe the mailing list was broken in
some new and interesting way, but I did quite
a bit of investigation, and I don't see anything
wrong. The responses from the 2 or 3 suggest
that the mail got thru.

At least 25 of us were on the phone when the
homework assignment was sketched and an
informal call for use cases was discussed.

The homework assignment went out in writing
a week ago.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0092.html

All 47 of us have agreed to spend one day per
week working on the business of this group.

It's understandable if various conflicts
interfere with homework from a few WG members,
but "To be successful, we expect the Working Group
to have approximately 10 to 20 active principal members"[ch]
and frankly, I don't see even that.

[ch] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter#L5131

If folks don't understand what they're expected
to do, would you please say so? If you're not
comfortable writing to the mailing list, feel free
to phone me (tel:+1-913-491-0501) or Jim (tel:+1-301-405-2696).

Jim and I have been discussing the schedule of this
group; the schedule from our charter is out of
date because it assumes we started in August.
Our official start is more like 1 November.
The plans I have been sketching call for us
to publish some sort of "hello world" requirements/scenarios
thing in December, and have a technical
specification for internal review two weeks
in advance of the Jan ftf so that we can
publish it soon after. That's the sort of
progress we need to make in order to meet
the market window that we told the W3C membership
was right for this Ontology technology.

But based on the participation in the scarios
homework that I can see, it looks like almost
nobody has any idea what they would do with
an ontology language if they had one.

Surely that's not the case, is it?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 16:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:46 GMT