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