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

Re: Proposal to request Candidate Recommendation

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:07:36 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f21bb446f6a5df9@[10.0.1.3]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 7:25 AM +0300 7/23/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/rqim.html
>[[
>Unfortunately, the proposal offered by Jeremy and the others could not be
>shown to be consistent with the correspondence proof of Appendix A of the OWL
>Semantics and Abstract Syntax document
>]]
>is an untrue statement.
>
>[[
>We received 74 comments in all. Of these we have answered and been
>acknowledged on 63 messages. For 11 more we have not received
>acknowledgements yet - on 9 of these we agreed or mostly agreed with the
>comment raiser and made edits to our documents in response. One comment has
>not been answered to the commentor's satisfaction, and we address this below.
>]]
>It should be clarified that a few commentors have not been given seven days to
>reply. (Well I guess they will have had by the time we get there but it is
>premature to have a CR vote before having given them time to reply).


a very small number of commentors were not given the requisite 7 days 
(but I believe only two of these are still open  -- Keck, whose 
comment came in well after the LC comment, and Dave Reynolds, who has 
now responded).  I am happy to make the CR vote contingent on 
addressing these two (Kecks' has already been addressed, so were' 
really just talking about the Jena team - and the proposed closing 
text does mention than as agreeing with your B1/B2 objection).

>
>
>[[
>integrate any changes to RDF Core specs
>]]
>We have already integrated some of the changes that RDF Core have told us
>about, and not others. Either we should go to CR with their last published
>WDs or we should go with all the decisions they have informed us about.
>The current state is unsatisfactory in that it presents an unnecessarily
>moving target for implementors.

But there is no way to resolve except for us to wait until they move 
to PR, which would mean we sit around for a month doing nothing.  The 
new process document makes it clear we can move to CR with a 
dependency like this as long as we specify it, and the Coordination 
Group didn't feel this puts us at significant risk.

The only alternatives I see are for us not to move to CR until after 
RDF Core goes to PR, which means us losing a month for no reason 
(assuming the Director accepts their PR proposal with no changes) or 
for us to spend a month doing other stuff and move right to PR at the 
end of the time.  I originally favored the latter, but it was clear 
from the straw poll that our group preferred having a CR, and this 
seems to me to be a good way to do it.

I think our current editors documents are very close to the current 
versions of the RDF Core documents - and that changes we haven't yet 
implemented are likely to be editorial (by definition - if they 
change their design, they need to go back to LC) - I've been informed 
by the RDF Core chairs that they do not expect to move back to LC, so 
Dan and I see no reason that we shouldn't move to CR now with the 
expectation that our documents will be fixed to concur with theirs 
prior to PR - and we mention that in the CR drat by included this CR 
criterion.

If you have specific wording changes - please propose
  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 13:07:42 GMT

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