- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:28:41 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
For what it is worth, and apologies for "dropping" this on people, but the telecons are scheduled at a time I cannot be there (I teach a semantic web class from 1-3:30 US East Coast time Wednesdays), I do NOT approve of moving the docs to Working draft at this point-- the charter specifies the OWL 1.1 documents as inputs to our WG, and thus their importance has been flagged. I believe that moving them to WG, no matter what we put in the status section, would imply more support than I am willing to endorse at this point in time. Rather, I would suggest that we simply skip Bijan's first step below, and hold all document publications until after the first f2f -- the group is still forming, the documents have already been flagged for attention, but I don't feel the level of WG review to date merits WG publication. If I'd know specifically that this was going to be discussed I'd of sent this before the telecon. -Jim H. On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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. > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:29:19 UTC