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

Re: Guide tests

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:28:41 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f20bba87a08a91b@[129.2.177.32]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

>
>(Recall that I don't support having the "consistency checker"
>conformance clause; I abstained. I'd be happy to see it go.
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf5.html#Test
>)


Given that I originally objected to all software conformance clauses, 
and only agreed to this one as a compromise - I completely agree with 
what Dan said in his email to Bernard earlier:

At 7:37 PM -0500 10/6/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>To reiterate my position from that discussion:
>my experience is that far too often, document formats are specified
>in terms of what various bits of software do with them, leading
>to piles of unanswered questions about what other sorts of software
>could or should do with them. So it's vitally important to specify
>what the documents mean largely, if not completely, independent
>of what various bits of software does with them.

So if this problem remains unsolvable, and if the WG feels that 
because we allowed "consistency checker" it somehow makes conformance 
to that the most important, then I would be willing (although 
reluctant) to reopen this discussion.  The reluctance is because 
having reviewed the process document, it is unclear whether this 
would be a substantive change  which is defined as

. A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other 
modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that 
making the change would invalidate an individual's review or 
implementation experience.

This would not invalidate implementation experience, so it would 
probably come down to whether anyone felt this really did invalidate 
their review and that they wanted to force us back to LC and etc.

if we need to play process, there are options that could be explored 
which would not take us back to LC, but could involve other risks 
(for example new objections recorded as we try to move to PR) -- my 
goal as chair is to see if we can avoid any such unpleasantness.

Therefore, for now, I believe the correct solution is for us to ask 
all the folks who are doing implementations to focus on these two -- 
having discussed it with several implementors, most have felt it is 
more important to pass as many tests as possible than to pass these 
particular two (which will be hard to pass as much because of size as 
anything else) -- in a separate mailing I'll see if I can encourage 
people to focus on these two more explicitely -- we still have time 
till PR as RDF Core hasn't yet started their second LC.

So let's not make any hasty decisions until we know the final situation.
  -JH
p.s. Jeremy, instead of withdrawing your action, my preference is to 
simply leave it open, as this will gaurantee we have to deal with 
this issue in due course without having to do any formal process 
stuff with respect to reopening issues, etc - at least until we 
concede defeat -- is that okay?



-- 
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 Tuesday, 7 October 2003 10:28:48 GMT

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