- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:19:51 +0100
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote: > i also have not been able to attend telecons to date since i had > air travel schedule prior to the scheduling of those 2 telecons. > thus apologies also for not getting this in earlier. Jim & Deb: no need to apologize. We didn't discuss the timing extensively during the call and I was tasked with raising the issue in email. So you're not late at all. The feedback is welcome. > i also support this position that we hold document publications > until after the first f2f. > i also do not feel that there is enough wg review to publish and in > fact i voiced the interest in having the documents be updates to > the existing owl documents and not appear to be totally new > documents at > the owl experiences and directions meeting in athens. [snip] Deb, at the time, if I recall correctly, you were referring primarily to "user facing" documents like the overview, reference, and guide, which fall under the "descriptive spec" and "outreach material" deliverables. The current proposal is to publish specs which correspond to the OWL 1.0 Semantics and Abstract syntax document (i.e., the formal spec deliverables. The relevant community there is implementors and spec lawyers who, thus far, overall have been pretty positive. Does your objection hold even there? That is, you think significant acceptance issue arise from not deltaing the Semantics and Abstract Syntax document? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 19:24:25 UTC