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

RE: confusion about the WG issue process

From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 02:06:46 +0200
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NGBBJNKIMLOPPCFHEJEMAEEHCPAA.massimo@w3.org>

Just an add-on, because an important question that Peter asked has not been
clearly addressed as I see: the
> >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?
Now, this can of course vary from group to group (chair rules...), but the
common W3C's practicse is that an editors can't resolve issues. It is in
fact common that while writing up, the editor realises there are new issues,
or related things. In this case, s/he ought to report to the wg; possibly,
some patch-in text can be added, but clearly marked as temporary, and with
the pointer to the appropriate problems. So in summary: the editor has a
very limited "freedom", other than in the, well, "editorial" realm
(structuring, presentation, etc). Of course, one can write a version of the
spec with her/his ideas on the resolution (like anybody else in the wg), but
such a version has then a proposal status, and is not to be considered an
internal working draft of the wg.

Hope this helps,
-M

ps All the above, as said, modulo Chair's redefinitions of the process :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Hendler
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 12:47 AM
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: confusion about the WG issue process
>
>
>
> Peter - since I have no clue what your questions mean, I find myself
> at a loss to answer them.  The issue process is clear, issues are
> opened by the chairs when needed as agreed to by the WG.  The WG
> decided that the 3 working drafts we release will all point at Mike
> Dean's reference document, which in turn has pointers to raised
> issues for those language features which correspond to ones where we
> have something on our issue list.  As per both our charter, our
> issues process, and convention -- when we've not yet agreed on a
> change, we use the DAML+OIL solution and include a pointer to the
> open issue.  As far as I can tell Mike has done an admirable job of
> doing this, the group reviewed this at the f2f, and as far as I can
> tell there is no reason to do anything at the moment other than
> exactly what we are doing.
>   Note: we make it very clear that any issue that is not yet resolved
> is, indeed, not yet resolved and thus I have trouble understanding
> what the problem is you point out.
>   Note that at the f2f we did open the semantic issues - 5.1, 5.3 and
> 5.10, so those are open for discussion.
>    A few other issues were already open.  Mike Smith has done an
> admirable job of tracking issue status and his document lists the
> issues currently open (and he will add 5.1 and 5.10 as soon as he
> returns from California)
>
>   Jim H
> p.s. The issue of what goes in owl lite and what goes in full was
> resolved at the f2f - so we will be closing 5.15 and 5.16
>
>
>
> At 12:54 PM -0400 7/3/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >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.
>
>
> --
> Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 20:07:27 GMT

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