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

Re: Proposed QA Reply (version 2)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 02 Jul 2003 16:15:38 -0500
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1057180538.24283.2466.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 14:38, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > 38. QA Review of owl-semantics
> > Sandro sent proposed reply.
> > ACTION: Jeremy, Jeff.
> > All editors add link from their document to ALL others.
> Replacing 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0268.html
> in response to DanC's suggestions
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0367.html
> and removing some material better covered by Jeremy's private reply
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0006.html
> here's my new suggested reply.
> To be clear, I believe we should have a WG decision on this.

OK... I think we're now well-prepared to make such a decision.

I for one am happy for what you've written here to serve as the
WG's response to the QA review. It seems Jeremy is too.

>   We
> didn't really agree that all docs would include "a prominent reference
> to the Document Roadmap"; Jeremy only agreed to consider it.  And we
> only implicitely agreed that the Last Call specs sufficiently address
> the issue of extensibility, as I claim we believe they do (in my point
> "2. Checkpoint 9.1").
> I'm also wondering if the editors of S&AS have done their related
> action here, or still plan to (as I claim).   We wont be able to
> really close this issue until they are also done with that.
>        -- sandro
> ================================================================
> To: karl@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
> Subject: Re: QA Review of owl-semantics
> In-Reply-To: <a05200f02bad5de373280@[]>
> References: <1051801689.6599.267.camel@dirk.dm93.org> <a05200f02bad5de373280@[]>
> Dear Karl and QA Working Group members,
> This is a reply from the Web Ontology Working Group (WebOnt) to your
> comments (a QA review) [1] on our Last Call version of "OWL Semantics
> and Abstract Syntax" ("S&AS") [3].  Dan Connolly sent a partial reply
> [2] only to Karl, which left several issues open.  This message
> addresses all issues except checkpoint 13.2 on which the editors are
> contacting you separately.
> First, I need to apologize for us not properly reviewing and
> commenting on your Last Call draft of the "QA Framework: Specification
> Guidelines" [4] before your deadline.  Each point below, addressing
> your comments on our spec is in a sense a comment on your spec.  We
> hope that even at this late date you find our comments helpful.
> 1. We have decided to publish our specification in the form of several
>    documents which are expected to have somewhat different audiences.
>    You have reviewed only one of the six and so missed most of the
>    (informative) background and explanatory material, as well as the
>    (normative) test suite and conformance section.   S&AS [3], the
>    document you reviewed, stated:
> 	    This document is designed to be read by those interested
> 	    in the technical details of OWL. It is not particularly
> 	    intended for the casual reader, who should probably first
> 	    read the OWL Guide [OWL Guide]. 
>    However, your comments suggested to us that the overall picture of
>    the OWL documents was not sufficiently obvious. The WG therefore
>    decided to include in all OWL recommendation-track documents both
>    (1) a statement that the document is one part of a set of
>    documents, and (2) a prominent reference to the Document Roadmap in
>    "OWL Overview" [5].
>    We believe many checkpoints not met by S&AS alone are fully met by
>    the OWL specification as a whole.  These include (in the order
>    given by your review) 1.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5, 10.1, 13.1, 1.4, 3.1,
>    13.4, 14.1, 14.2, and 2.3.  Most of these are addressed in OWL Test
>    Cases [6].  The remaining checkpoints on which you noted
>    non-conformance are discussed below.
> 2. Checkpoint 9.1 ("Indicate if the specification is extensible.").
>    We believe the goals of this checkpoint [11] have been satisfied,
>    although we offer no simple yes/no answer or claims for the related
>    section 9 checkpoints. As you know, OWL is constructed using RDF
>    and XML, so it inherits many of their extensibility features.  For
>    instance, we demonstrate RDF extensibility by showing how OWL terms
>    can be seen as an extension of RDFS terms [7], and we explain how
>    XML Datatype extensibility affects OWL [8] [9].  At the same time,
>    OWL Lite and DL have strict limits on what they contain, as
>    detailed in the conformance limits [10].  Among these and related
>    parts of our specification we believe we have guided the markets
>    around OWL sufficiently well at this time.
> 3. Checkpoint 13.2 ("Distinguish normative and informative text").
>    The Working Group feels that the style for making this distinction
>    is a matter of editorial discretion, best done with an
>    understanding of a particular document and its audience.  The
>    editors of S&AS have agreed to discuss this directly with you.
> I hope you find these explanations and comments useful.  I would be
> happy to continue discussion of your specifications.  Meanwhile, Karl,
> please let me know (with a cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org) whether
> this reply is satisfactory in addressing your group concerns about our
> specifications.
>     -- Sandro Hawke, W3C (Semantic Web Advanced Development)
>        writing on behalf of the Web Ontology Working Group
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0064
> and http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/04/QA-Rev-owl-semantics-all
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0002
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/#s1.1
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1
> [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2
> [10] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#docConformance
> [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#Gd-extensions
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 17:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC