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

Re: confusion about the WG issue process

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:45:27 -0400
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020704094527C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: confusion about the WG issue process
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:46:30 -0400

> 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.  

This would mean that there is no OWL Lite, because this issue (5.2) is not
recorded as closed.  
  

> 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.

I disagree with the last portion of this.  Both the feature specification
and the abstract syntax take different stances than those taken in DAML+OIL
that are not supported by closed issues.  This seems to me to run counter
to the issue process.

>   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.

The problem is that documents that are heading towards WD status take
stances different from those taken in DAML+OIL that are not supported by
closed issues.  Is this allowed?

[...]

>   Jim H

[...]

> >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 need an answer to these questions. Let me restate and combine them: 

  Can a WD in this WG be produced that has a different stance from that
  taken in DAML+OIL without there being a closed issue that supports this
  change? 

> >I am also asking for clarification of how the issue process is
> >supposed to work in general.  How are issues opened?  

I also need an answer to this question.  Let me restate it slightly:

  What can I do to open issues? 


In essence I am asking whether the issue process is a joke or not.  (And
this is no joke.)  I have tried to stay within the issue process as much as
possible, but now I don't see how to stay within the issue process as it is
currently being implemented and still make reasonable progress.

peter
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 09:45:39 GMT

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