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

Re: WOWG: Agenda Sep 18 telecon

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:33:44 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f24bb8e2ce4a8fb@[]>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
My regrets, travel rescheduling due to potential hurricane makes me a 
definite miss --  my comments inline to those things I comment on 
(other stuff snipped to save space)

>PROPOSED to meet biweekly for 90 minutes Background: chairs have
>reconsidered this. Rationale for biweekly: it may take some time for
>the WG to go to PR/Rec due to the RDFCore dependency. We prefer less
>frequent telecons with good attendance. Agenda will be mix of
>tests/comments/schedule and outreach.

jah: my proxy to Guus to vote in favor of this

>ACTION Guus: send overview of ISWC-related events

jah: I know SWSI and DAML are also meeting thereabouts, can some 
email those dates to the WG as well?

>2.2 Guideline/FAQ repository for OWL
>ACTION DanC: Propose Wiki be used for FAQ

jah: I have thought about this a while, I worry about a WIKI approach 
- we want to control some of this -- I think a WIKI page for users to 
be able to write/comment that is linked to a page maintained 
somewhere in W3C space makes much more sense.  I propose we consider 
starting this page as a WG, putting an "expiration date" on it equal 
to end of our WG (i.e. no commmitment beyond our chartered date) -- 
we would then have an expectation that the new SWIG (if approved) 
would take this over, but we would have no commitment if they don't.

>ACTION: Jim will report back on status of Gene Ontology
>Consortium re OWL.

jah: nothing new to report - stay CONTinued

>3. CR/PR ISSUES (15-25 min)

>ACTION: Jim Hendler - Check with Bijan re owl syntax checkers passing
>all tests

jah: we have not yet accomplished this, but we think we are getting 
close.  Current plan is to integrate this in with PELLET.  I would 
like this ACTION to be recorded as DONE, and if/when we have this 
completed we will report it in.

Note that we had a lot of trouble with the B1/B2 stuff until we got 
Sean's document - it was very helpful.  We may want to consider 
making a link to this somewhere where other developers can find it.

>ACTION JimH: check process doc re: features at Risk

jah: I was asked to look into this with respect to the B1/B2  issue. 
The process document reads:

After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group MAY 
remove features from the technical report that were identified as 
being "at risk" and request that the Director Call for Review of a 
Proposed Recommendation. If the Working Group makes other substantive 
changes to the technical report, the Director MUST return it to the 
Working Group for further work.

jah: I believe this is good news for us - it means whichever way we 
eventually rule on this issue we are covered.  I was afraid we might 
need to inform people of something prior to PR, but we don't have to 
-- so we can, as a WG, decide any time up to the last minute.

(This completes the above action item)

>- position of WebOnt wrt. internationalization issues: discussion on
>   whether/how to adapt Guus' message

jah: I give my proxy to Guus on this issue.  I will send separate 
email to the WG with my rationale.

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, 17 September 2003 11:33:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:55 UTC