- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:49:57 +0000
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Bijan correctly observed: > Furthermore, Jeremy apparently is proposing producing Working > Drafts that aren't rec track, or submission track, but /dev/null/ > track (i.e., deliberately designed to be dropped after one or two > versions). minor correction I wouldn't want multiple such WDs To clarify: - I am sufficiently keen on a less technical doc coming out before the end of Jan, that I prefer us to concentrate on the material rather than its final publication form. - however it is published in a FPWD, the (best of the) material can be moved to appropriate 'finished' documents So I would be happy with publishing an 'Odds and Sods WD' for two iterations and then moving the contents to more stable locations as the publication goals became clearer. However, there seems to be some energy for producing a diff version of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ and a 'traceability matrix' doc. The latter could be thought of as a Use Case and Requirements Doc for OWL 1.1, and so that could well have a stable end state, for example as a WG Note. Another reason I am less than committed to FPWD with an end goal, is that if I am an editor of any of them, I expect to put my effort later in the group into more technical docs (e.g. OWL Full Semantics or Test Cases), so while I would be happy to work on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Features to help turn it into a WD, I am not prepared to personally commit to taking it through to WG Note or Rec. Jeremy PS On the rest of the thread, I seem to be in agreement with both Bijan and Jim, who appeared to be agreeing in large part. PPS Banter about the charter is important because what any group does depends significantly on their interpretation of the charter. At the moment, we largely have our own individual interpretations - as we exchange banter, and cat calls: - 'out of charter' - 'no, that was in charter' we will gradually devleop a group understanding of our charter, that will strengthen our ability to act as a group. I am sorry it is somewhat reminiscent of playground games, and I would not be surprised if most of us are the sort of people who didn't much enjoy the in-group, out-group games of childhood.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 17:50:24 UTC