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

Re: confusion about the WG issue process

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 21:29:21 -0700
Message-ID: <3D23CF21.CCB2966D@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: Michael Sintek <sintek@db.stanford.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Raphael Volz <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>



Jim Hendler wrote:

> At 6:25 PM -0700 7/3/02, Michael Sintek wrote:
> >Jim Hendler wrote:
> >>
> >>...
> >>  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
> >
> >
> >Dear Jim,
> >
> >please note that the issue what goes into owl lite and what goes into
> >owl full was NOT resolved !
> >
> >Raphael & Michael Sintek
>
> Raphael and Michael - you are right - I was confused - checking the
> log I realize that I was confusing this with some other resolutions.

What was resolved was what goes into OWL Lite in the initial document release.

deborah

>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >| Michael Sintek          | email: sintek@db.stanford.edu             |
> >| Stanford Univ, DB Group | WWW  : http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sintek/ |
> >| Gates Bldg, Room 433    | phone: +1 650 725 3359                    |
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 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

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 00:30:13 GMT

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