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

Re: WOWG: agenda Sep 19 telecon

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Sep 2002 13:12:33 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1032372753.2992.4172.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 12:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: WOWG: agenda Sep 19 telecon
> Date: 18 Sep 2002 12:17:20 -0500
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 10:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am worried that there has been no indication of what should happen in
> > > preparation for the upcoming F2F.  I haven't seen any information about
> > > which documents will be considered at F2F4, or which topics will be
> > > discussed there.
> > > 
> > > According to what Dan said
> > > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0132.html), 
> > > documents should be *finalized* two weeks before a F2F.
> > 
> > Well, they should be available to everybody by then. They don't have
> > to be finalized in the sense that everybody has read and
> > agreed to them. Two weeks before the ftf is 24 Sep.
> > I'm not aware of any documents that we should be discussing
> > at the ftf that are unlikely to be available by 24 Sep.
> 
> In the current state of affairs, I consider it unlikely that there will be
> an acceptable version of the OWL/RDF semantics document available by 24
> September.

I consider it a certainty; i.e. there are acceptable documents
already available:

# semantics document revised pat hayes (Tue, Sep 10 2002)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0100.html

* Re: semantics document revised Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Tue, Sep 10
2002)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0101.html

'acceptable' hear means suitable for dicussion, not that
I (or you or anybody else) agree 100% with the documents as written.

If better documents become available in time for everybody
to review them before the meeting, very well. Otherwise, I expect
we'll go with one or more of the above (or maybe there's a more
recent draft that I missed).

>   I don't know about the testing document, as all we've seen is
> the initial proposal by Jeremy.

I guess I have a hard time worrying about the testing document
when we have only 2 test cases (or are we up to 3 now?)
in our test suite.

> > >  I'm willing to
> > > shave this to a week, but I think that it is necessary to determine which
> > > documents will be up for consideration, and what topics are going to be
> > > discussed, with at least two weeks of lead time.
> > > 
> > > I consider this an extremely serious problem.  In my view, most of this
> > > week's telecon has to be devoted to preparation for F2F4.
> > 
> > Assembling the ftf agenda is usually done by the chair offline.
> > That's happening; I have seen rough drafts. Maybe they should be copied
> > to the WG mailing list.
> > But I don't recommend spending telcon time drafting the ftf agenda.
> 
> Neither do I.  However, I don't even know which, if any, semantics
> documents will be up for discussion at the F2F.

Well, that's the purpose of the two-weeks-before-the-meeting
deadline: to decide which documents to discuss. Why would
you expect to know before the deadline?

>  I don't even know if the
> F2F is supposed to be devoted to issues or documents.

Both, I expect. I don't see them as separable. Issues
are resolved by wording in documents, no?


> Given this, I don't know whether I should have been devoting time to
> hashing out issues or going over the OWL/RDF semantics document.

I suggest hashing out issues by going over the OWL/RDF semantics
document(s).

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 14:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT