- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:38:37 +0100
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:48 PM, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > Jeremy described some options for a publication schedule > for first Working Drafts. Here are my thoughts: > >> Option 1: >> (from telecon - with clear support) >> Publish member submission documents, with disclaimer indicating that >> while this are the focus of our discussion they are not yet >> 'consensus' >> documents - >> amendment from HP: perhaps not RDF Mapping > > I was originally lukewarm to this option, now I object to it. What > value > is there in re-publishing these documents? [snip] Please look at my original post making the proposal: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0079.html> It lays out some reasons. I have thought of others (e.g., gets us through the publishing process). See this post from an experienced W3Cer for a similar view: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0248.html> It does no harm, I believe, to have a clear starting point and has the potential to do some good that is relatively difficult to get any other way (i.e., wide early review). I believe our schedule indicates a need for some high level of efficiency, so this is a low cost way to get the wider public's input which, I believe, will overall make our job easier. Of course, there are a number of ways it might go wrong, but I think it's pretty clear that these are unlikely and easily repaired. Lost time is less easy to repair. Bye the bye, most working drafts are *not* consensus documents, if by this one means, as it seems to be suggested, that the design is endorsed by all, or, indeed, any, of the working group. Furthermore, most WGs I've been involved with continue work on the documents right after publishing them, since they are *working* drafts, not any sort of final draft or commitment. If people disagree with the goals or think they are unlikely or have some cost, that's fine. I'm interested to hear such. But please, let's discuss what I proposed and the reasons I gave. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 00:38:52 UTC