W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: SOTD for publications

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:13:03 +0000
Message-Id: <A4AC2518-2C6E-4392-A0A3-230E27B8ADC3@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On 4 Dec 2007, at 15:49, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> I have been scanning the three docs that I believe we are  
> suggesting for FPWD i.e.
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax
> I like the yellow boxes presentation of the links to the issues,  
> and hope that sort of presentation can be preserved in the  
> migration to TR space docs.

Thanks. It was quite a lot of work, but does provide a useful way of  
grouping issues and may even help us to address them more efficiently  
(I live in hope).

> I added two more such links at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics#Introduction


> ===
> I note that Sandro or Ivan needs to draft SOTD text for these:
> I hope that such text could indicate:
> a) that these are the member submission docs, with minor modification
> b) they are not yet 'consensus' documents
> c) that the issues the WG is considering are found at issue-list-uri
> d) that some of the issues relevant to specific sections are shown  
> at the beginning of the sections.
> e) sections with fewer issues are likely to have greater consensus  
> in the WG

I would prefer a more "cup half full" formulation, i.e., a statement  
that we are working towards consensus, but still have issues to  
address (as per the issue list and review comments).


> (However I believe the etiquette is that the team contact has first  
> and last say on this text, so a big please, with no expectation!)
> Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 16:13:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC