W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:33:30 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510152fb8ec857d3994@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
>At 12:31 PM -0500 4/23/02, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>>You know there have been several proposals for HOW to do it.  We 
>>can't even get to that point if we have to keep persuading the 
>>coordination group why it needs doing at all.  (I feel a bit like 
>>an engineer trying to persuade the design oversight committee that 
>>we really do need a tube from the fuel tank to the engine, and they 
>>keep asking what effect it is going to have on the color of the 
>>paintwork.)  But OK, here's a proposal: we provide some way to 
>>indicate that a given namespace is dark (I'll leave the exact XML 
>>syntax for this to someone else: invent something that leaves some 
>>recognizable and unambiguous trace in the RDF graph.) Then the rule 
>>is that any triple containing any uriref from that namespace is 
>>dark. The appropriate choice for DAML for example would be to 
>>darken the daml:list/daml:first/daml:last vocabulary.
>
>Pat - the Coordination Group has asked the committee in Guus's 
>message (which includes people who are in BOTH WG's) to make a 
>specific proposal.

No, it didn't. It asked for 'clarification', which is what we have 
been trying to provide. I understood this to be a request for an 
explanation of WHY this needs doing at all, not a proposal for how to 
do it. That task has already been handed to the RDF core WG, as I 
understand it.

>RDF Core chairs are on board for this -- we are asking you to do 
>EXACTLY what you keep asking us to do - let you make a decision. 
>The goal is to come up with a specific proposal we (WebOnt) want and 
>that the folks also on RDF Core (you, Jeremy, Jos) think is 
>consistent with their goals.  My impression (Guus, correct me if I 
>misunderstood) is that you will bring this proposal to RDF Core 
>where the issue will be opened, discussed, and hopefully resolved.

I don't see anything in Guus' message that could be interpreted this way.

>But so far NO ONE HAS AGREED TO THIS ACTION,

WHO or WHAT do you expect to 'agree to this action'? The 'task force' 
has no internal structure, and has never even met as a body; it has 
no leader, nobody has the authority to speak for it.

Massimo complains about 39 emails.  So far the only emails Ive seen 
on the actual TOPIC (as opposed to emails like yours and Massimos, 
which are all about internal W3C committee-politics) have been from 
Peter, Jos, Jeremy and me, all members of this ad-hoc group, trying 
to respond as well as we can to what seemed like Guus' request.

>  so if this group will accept it, please let us know.

What is the approved W3C procedure for a group to accept anything? 
Who speaks for the group? I ask because you seem to be the Roberts 
Rules expert here. I don't see how I (or any other member of the 
group) could accept a task on behalf of the rest of the group.

>If you won't accept it - let us know what you propose instead  -- 
>otherwise we'll be forced to declare this issue closed and move on 
>(which would obviously be silly given the effort that has been put 
>into it)

Nah, go ahead and declare it closed. What the f**k, OWL won't have a 
semantics, but you won't lose any sleep over that, right?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT