- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I think that this is a great idea, particularly if we can get the issue proposer to explain proposed issues (instead of us having to not only gather external issues, but also manage them). There are a number of potential pitfalls related to denial of service attacks which I would hope that whatever issue tracking system gets used/developed can manage. peter From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Proposed Issues and Accepted Issues Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:49:32 +0100 > I am discharging and unrecorded issue with this email. > > The OWL 1.1 issues list is managed through the Google Code project's > issue list: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/list > > At the moment, this is open to anyone who has a google id (i.e., they > don't need to be a member of the group). We have encouraged everyone > interested to post issues to that list and the admins and editors > have disposed of the issues in a variety of ways. > > In the working group, only the chairs can formally raise (or reopen) > an issue. However, I still think it's really convenient to use an > issue tracker to manage proposed issues. Otherwise, we have to watch > email a lot and things get harder to manage, esp. if at one point we > don't open an issue but later we think we should. The Tracker tool: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > makes this a bit easier by watching IRC and our mailing list. > > I would like that we use e.g., Tracker in a world open way and ask > people who really want to raise issues to put them in that issue > management tool. The chairs then can dispose of proposed issues by > either accepting/opening them or declining to do so. Sandro is > investigating whether Tracker can be extended to handle this > methodology. > > I guess the main point is whether the group agrees that the interface > to the general world should be an issue management system. If so, > then we can implement it however we want. > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 19:03:36 UTC