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

Re: Another E-Mail VOTE (again with Monday deadline)

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:58:31 +0100
Message-ID: <3FC73867.6080306@cs.vu.nl>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

As Ibrow representative:
YES

As chair:
Sorry for this fuss. I have reviewed the proposals of the test editors 
and in my opinion there are reasonable and an constitute a significant 
improvement to the document.

Guus


Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 
> Apologies for the lateness, but the information this week [1] that we cannot
> go on approving tests after PR (except as a result of new input), means that
> the last twenty remaining tests need to be resolved before the request to
> advance goes out on Monday.
> 
> Also I detected that we have not fully implemented the decision about OWL
> Full nonentailments being EXTRACREDIT tests.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> ===
> 
> I PROPOSE that we approve, obsolete or approve as extracredit all remaining
> proposed tests as detailed below; reclassify all APPROVED OWL Full
> nonentailments and consistency tests as EXTRACREDIT (as detailed [2], [3]
> yesterday); obsolete Thing-002 and modify oneof-004 as noted below.
> 
> As before this is an e-mail vote, with deadline on Monday, (I suggest midday
> US West Coast, i.e. 8pm Greenwich, 9 pm in Paris, 3 pm Boston, as the
> deadline - it gives me long enough to upload the changes before bedtime and
> should give as many US members a chance to consider this as possible - could
> a chair please ratify the deadline)
> 
> Please reply YES, ABSTAIN, or NO
> (I guess NO's could be qualified by specific test approvals you vote
> against, if you are generally in favour of the package)
> 
> ====
> 
> Summary:
> Approve  12 tests
> Approve 5 tests as extracredit
> Obsolete 3 proposed tests
> Obsolete 1 approved tests
> Modify 1 approved test
> 
> 
> Details  (footnotes indicated [a,b,c] thus)
> (Note you may need to regenerate the results page, and read the footnotes,
> to get the number of passes claimed!)
> 
> 
> 
> TWICE PASSED TESTS - For Approval:
> Thing-003   [a]
> description-logic-208
> Thing-004
> Thing-005 [b]
> imports-014
> Restriction-006
> someValuesFrom-001
> description-logic-909
> 
> SMALLER ONCE PASSED TESTS - For Approval
> I5.3-014 [b]
> 
> LARGER ONCE PASSED TESTS - For Approval
> description-logic-209 [d]
> miscellaneous-010 [d]
> miscellaneous-011 [d]
> 
> ONCE PASSED for EXTRACREDIT
> AnnotationProperty-004 [a,e]
> I5.5-007  [b,e]
> 
> Dull Tests - for OBSOLETE
> These tests have not been (much) discussed during last call or CR:
> 
> cardinality-005
> description-logic-666
> description-logic-668
> 
> Superceded (approved) test for OBSOLETE
> Thing-002 (duplicated by Thing-003)
> 
> Arithmetic tests for EXTRACREDIT
> 
> description-logic-905 [c]
> description-logic-906 [c]
> description-logic-910 [c]
> 
> 
> Modification to oneOf-004
> We are currently voting [1] on reclassifying tests which use datatypes other
> than {integer or string} as EXTRACREDIT. With one such test oneOf-004 it
> makes more sense to change the test to use xsd:integer instead of xsd:short,
> and leave it as APPROVED. (It was not included in the proposal to move to
> EXTRACREDIT)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-test-20030818/proposedByFunction#oneOf-004
> 
> last triple in conclusions
> first:i first:p "4"^^xsd:short  .
> 
> to be replaced by
> first:i first:p "4"^^xsd:integer  .
> 
> [a]
> See the following informal implementor reports as well as the results page
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0117.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0116.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0094.html
> 
> 
> [b]
> Note the input of Evren Sirin on these tests
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Nov/0026
> 
> [c]
> (Arithmetic => EXTRACREDIT)
> we are currently voting on approving 907 as EXTRACREDIT, which is a harder
> variant of these tests - however it is a form that does not seem to have
> been widely implemented,
> I am pleased to see we have got two passes for 909.
> 
> [d]
> (approving 3 larger once passed tests)
> All of these have been proposed as part of our CR discussion. With only one
> pass there is a greater risk that we will need to fix them (either as a
> change before REC, or as a normative correction, the alternative is to
> obsolete them.
> 
> [e]
> These are full nonentailment or consistency tests, and hence fall under the
> policy of being extracredit.
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0095.html
> 
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0114.html
> 
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0115.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 07:10:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT