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

Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond!

From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:23:13 -0500
Message-ID: <3C752CFB.BDBFFB80@olin.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
I am happy to tell the group that I read it; I did.

I did not want to tell the group all of the little things I thought; I didn't.

I do want to share the following as a summary:

I think that the document is somewhat rougher than I'd hoped at this
point.  With all due respect to the editors, who have been doing a
valiant job, I don't really think it's ready to roll.*

1. I felt that the introductory text needed some smoothing.  I haven't
reviewed the most recent (13h old) draft yet, but did send suggestions
on the previous version.
2. I think that it is important to include a historical
footnote/allusion to AI/KR.  I proposed that text.
3. I suggested text clarifying the role of the use cases within the
document and our process.
4. I felt that the use cases themselves were very inconsistent.  I
proposed a number of changes, but believe that there's probably still
work to be done here.
5. I have not read/responded to the new use case(s) or the newest
version of the whole document.  I therefore cannot speak to their
readiness for release and do not consider that I've been given adequate
time for this task.
6. I wish I had been able to do a better job of detailed review of the
last section, but the time frame did not permit.  If this means I've
waived my right to review it, I'm unhappy but will accept it as this is
my scheduling issue.*


* a note on timing/scheduling:  I and presumably a number of other folks
set aside time to respond to the document that we were expecting
considerably prior to its actual arrival.  When it became clear that the
deadline was slipping, I and presumably others indicated that it would
be colliding with some other time issues.  It has been very difficult to
reclaim the necessary time in the specific interval that was required.
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 12:23:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC