Re: OWL-WG in exile (was Re: errors in Turtle examples)

On August 8, 2014 11:00:33 AM EDT, Ian Horrocks <> wrote:
>Dear Simon,
>I am not an expert on W3C process, but I imagine that it will be
>challenging to get support for this activity.

Indeed, the problem with this plan is finding many W3C members who think it's worth their time.    The process doesn't really support "shell" WG's.

To look at it a little differently, it will still take a non trivial amount of time.   Are you sure it's worth it?  

I don't think Ian or I currently have time to put this together, but if someone else is, I'm happy give them some guidance.

    - Sandro (was W3C staff contact for OWL WG)

>On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:23, Simon Spero <> 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
>> 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 Saturday, 9 August 2014 10:30:38 UTC