W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Overview document

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 09:52:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3F367853.5070209@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>



Frank van Harmelen wrote:

>
>
> Sandro wrote:
>
>> > I wonder how much has changed since this document was last validated?
>
>
> Deb replied:
>
>> my edits have been minimal in formating so as to introduce hopefully no
>> validation problems.  the only formatting i did was to put in the 
>> required
>> updates to section headings (and the appropriate updates to the listing)
>> that were added. I did the sweep of removing the control ms though if 
>> that
>> matters.  Frank also touched the document since the last validation 
>> but i
>> thought it was validated before i got it but am not sure.
>
>
> I made some significant changes (e.g. updating the table with how the 
> language elements are distributed over Lite/DL/Full), and have not 
> validated after those changes.
>
> Sandro wrote:
>
> Deb replied:
>
>> [...]
>> We also have:
>>
>> "The suggested reading order of these documents is as given, since 
>> they have
>>  been listed in increasing degree of technical content."
>>
>> at the end of the roadmap.
>>
>> If it is desirable to put requirements in this listing that is fine.  I
>> would just drop the suggested reading order sentence then and have
>> requirements at the end of the listing.
>
>
> I would strongly oppose dropping the sentence on suggested reading 
> order. That sentence is an essential part of the roadmap-message. 

the sentence was dropped as agreed on the telecon on thurs since the 
listing no longer reflects increasing degree of technical content and no 
longer reflects the suggested order of reading beyond the first 4 documents.
that was why i had argued for keeping the discussion of the requirements 
document in the place that it made more sense to discuss it so it would 
not complicate the ordering issue.  (adding tests to the listing that 
prescribed order complicated it a bit  but one could still argue that it 
would be last in the ordering and had more technical detail so it did 
not bother things as much.  I would have put both of those where they 
naturally came up but some wanted all documents listed in the roadmap.)

Assuming all documents listed there, a better solution than dropping the 
sentence would have been to say:

"The suggested reading order of the first four documents is as given, 
since they have
 been listed in increasing degree of technical content."

(I could add something to state that
    "the last two documents complete the documentation set .)

dan/sandro - should i put this in my editors draft right after the 
listing in the roadmap?  (I released control on friday so i have not 
made any changes since then and do not want to hinder your release process.)

>
>
> Frank.
>   ----
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 12:53:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT