- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:37:58 +0100
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I was thinking about this a bit more, and I have a bit longer schedule proposal for the core trio. Oct: Publish first WD with body text verbatim but with appropriate disclaimers. By first f2f: we clear all current editorial issues (typos, the unclarity of the conditions on roles, etc.) or any others we fine, and by the end of the first f2f we identify parts of the documents which are controversial. We decide at the first F2F to publish fresh documents with the fixes and clear flags for the controversial bits. Thereafter, as we clear reasonable chunks of contentious issues, we publish new WDs to reflect that. I'm thinking it would be nice to have markers akin to what's in the HTML5 drafts, see: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ (Look at the "big issue" text, which is red and in a box.) So, for example, in the RDF Mapping document, a clear contentious issue is the use of reification for annotated axioms, both in general, and in the particular way it's done. I'd like that the second WD of that document either have changed/confirmed that (because the WG has consensus by then...highly unlikely, IMHO), or we flag it brightly with a link to a raised issue about it. I also think that by the first f2f it would be nice to have gathered up existing implemention and user feedback. Publishing an early WD gives us something sensible, post-submission, to point to. (I.e., "Hey implementors, Hey users, please look at the first WD and let us know any problems you have.:") So, to reiterate, my main reason for pubbing first wds early is to solicit as wide review as early as possible and to get reviewers of older versions to refresh their reviews. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:36:48 UTC