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

confusion about the WG issue process

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 12:54:10 -0400
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020703125410F.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I don't seem to understand the issue process in this working group.
There is much work that involves making changes with respect to issues
that are not open and not closed, at least not according to the
issues document of 16 June 2002, including:

     issue 4.1 uniqueprop bad name
     issue 4.2 cardinality constructs levels
     issue 4.4 extra logical feature set
     issue 5.1 uniform treatment of literal data values
     issue 5.5 list syntax or semantics
     issue 5.8 datatypes
     issue 5.9 malformed DAML+OIL restrictions
     issue 5.10 DAML+OIL semantics is too weak

Some of this work involves the abstract syntax/formal specification
document that I am producing, some involves other documents.

In addition, several issues are being implicitly addressed in that
ongoing work assumes that there will be no change from their status in
DAML+OIL, including:

     issue 2.5 closed sets
     issue 2.6 ordered property values
     issue 4.3 structured datatypes
     issue 5.4 OWL:QUOTE
     issue 5.6 daml:imports as magic syntax
     issue 5.7 range restrictions should not be separate URIs

I had thought that non-open issues should not be undergoing such
active work, and was actually surprised that the document I am
producing makes so many changes to non-open issues.


So, I am asking for clarification on how the issue process is supposed
to work with respect to the collection of documents being produced.
Is it OK for an appointed editor to produce documents that assume
particular resolutions of non-closed issues?  Is it OK for an
appointed editor to produce document that assume particular
resolutions of non-closed, non-open issues?


I am also asking for clarification of how the issue process is
supposed to work in general.  How are issues opened?  If WG members
can request the opening of issues, I propose opening the following
issues because they are currently being explicitly or implicitly
addressed in the documents currently being produced, or in a couple of
cases, related to the documents currently being produced:

     issue 2.5 closed sets
     issue 2.6 ordered property values
     issue 4.1 uniqueprop bad name
     issue 4.2 cardinality constructs levels
     issue 4.3 structured datatypes
     issue 4.4 extra logical feature set
     issue 5.1 uniform treatment of literal data values
     issue 5.4 OWL:QUOTE
     issue 5.5 list syntax or semantics
     issue 5.6 daml:imports as magic syntax
     issue 5.7 range restrictions should not be separate URIs
     issue 5.8 datatypes
     issue 5.9 malformed DAML+OIL restrictions
     issue 5.10 DAML+OIL semantics is too weak
     issue 5.14 ontology versioning



Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research


PS: This is not the first time that I have asked for clarification on the WG
issue process.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 12:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT