- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:32:46 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
In light of the conversation, maybe we should wait a bit on that one - it's clear there is still mixed feeling in the group (or at least one person who has raised objections) and it would be nice not to force a formal vote this early in the WG. Let me remind people how a WG usually brings a document to publication. First, there is discussion and issues are raised and address - I accept some of this occured pre-WG. Second, the document is prepared, and at some point the editor declares he/she believes we are at the right point to publish and that all the point raised by the WG and public comments have been addressed. Third, the chair appoints a couple of volunteers from the WG, who are not lead editors or major contributors, to review the document (and all other members are invited to contribute). The reviewers bring their thoughts back to the WG. If they believe it is ready to go, or only needs minor changes, then the chair proposes the actual publication. By then there is usually consensus and agreement and the group unanimously supports publication (or, there is a standing issue, and it moves to publication with registered technical objections). Seems to me the resolution as written is sort of odd. It says we want to move on them -- doesn't say how. I suggest we simply do what is usually done, have the editors declare they'd like to move them forward (Which I blieve has happened). We should then get review, discuss the issues of concern, and move forward like a real WG. -JH On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: (resolution status/documents)Re: minutes for 17 October > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:43:06 -0400 > > [...] > >> I essentially agree with you. Ian and I discussed this, and will >> suggest at the next meeting that in order to give people who can't >> attend the teleconf's a better chance to participate in decision >> making we will allow a 1 week "cooling off period" on all decisions, >> and revisit them if substantive objections are raised. > > [...] > > Even for decisions that are proposed in advance? > > There is an example of this coming up in the next teleconference: > > PROPOSED: Publish Structural Specification, Formal Semantics, > RDF Mapping documents as first public WDs in the next few weeks > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.24/Agenda > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Alcatel-Lucent > "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 Monday, 22 October 2007 13:33:13 UTC