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

Re: Semantic Review (reference process question)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Jan 2003 15:01:51 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1041454911.19701.44.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 12:28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > References
> > How about referencing the newer RDF documents?
> 
> I've upgraded to the latest published ones.
> 
> This brings up an important issue.  How can we go to last call without
> reviewing our documents against the last call RDF Core documents?   Does
> W3C process even allow this?

Yes.

(a) the process constraints for publishing a last call
documents are (1) the constraints for doing any WD
plus (2) a decision by the WG that all issues are closed
(and requirements/charter are met).
There aren't any others.
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#last-call

(b) I don't think this is codified in the process
document, but my experience is that when
The Director evaluates a request to take
document A to stage N, where A cites B normatively
and B is at stage M<N, The Director often accepts
the risk, expecting that B will reach N before
A exits N.

For example, a request to take SMIL to Proposed
Rec when XML Namespaces was still a WD was granted,
on the expectation that Namespaces would get
to Proposed Rec before SMIL exited Proposed
Rec.

Or something like that.

In short: if the WebOnt WG thinks the risks of
citing less-than-last-call RDF WDs are acceptable,
then nothing else in W3C process is going
to stop WebOnt from going to last call in
that state.


> 
> > Jeremy
> 
> peter
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2003 16:01:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT