- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:00:33 +0000
- To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- CC: "<public-owl-comments@w3.org>" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Dear Simon, I am not an expert on W3C process, but I imagine that it will be challenging to get support for this activity. Regards, Ian On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:23, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote: > There are enough small but important changes and corrections needed to various OWL documents that it might be worth chartering up a shell WG, with a stub charter to > > • OWL 2.0.1 : Prepare a §7.6.2 class 3 modified recommendation incorporating current errata, clarifying behavior WRT RDF/1.1 simple literals, etc. > • OWL 2.1 : Propose changes to OWL that involving the addition of new features, or deprecation of existing features based on experience with OWL 2.0. > > The shell WG could receive what are believed to be fully-baked, consensus documents, developed in an open, traceable manner (e.g. in a github repo and possibly reusing the existing public-owl-wg mailing list). > > Once a document is hits rough consensus+running code, the WG chair could ask to publish it as an FWD followed immediately by LC (meets). § 7.4.1. does not prohibit this). The threshold for failing an LC should be lower than usual. If LC passes, the specs should advance to proposed (since there should have been implementation before the formal process initiates). > > > Simon
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 15:01:15 UTC