W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Comments on structural specification (was Re: document pubication schedule)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:22:58 +0100
Message-ID: <471DD992.20009@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Elisa wrote:
We are comfortable with publication of the model theoretic semantics
document, but do not believe that either the structural specification or
MOF-based metamodel on which it depends
[...] are ready to be published with
working draft status.

Hi Elisa

I am unclear whether your message meant:

a) the MOF-based metamodel require significant WG review before wider review

b) the MOF-based metamodel require some WG review that could duplicate 
wider review, and so you are suggesting delaying publication

c) the MOF-based metamodel appears to you to be fairly fundamentally 
broken, and requires a wholesale rewrite before you would be happy with 

or somewhere inbetween ...

I suppose I am interested in, suppose the WG decided to publish this 
document, but allowed you to write the introductory status section, what 
would you say:

The MOF is still being review and is not yet a consensus design.
The MOF is not a consensus design, and some WG members are developing an 
alternative design.
The MOF is not a consensus design, and some WG members believe it to be 
seriously flawed and are developing an alternative design.
Some aspects of this document depend on the MOF that can be found in
[OWL 1.1 Member Submission]: the WG is currently addressing various 
issues with this design and hope to incorporate a MOF in a future 
version of this document.



As an example, while I dislike the RDF Mapping doc in the member 
submission, I would be prepared to agree to a publication that merely 
contained the title, the introduction, and one or two empty sections 
with words to the effect that the sections will be filled in along the 
lines of the member submission and/or OWL 1.0 S&AS section 4, in a 
future version. I don't believe such a document would be helpful, but it 
would be an honest working draft, reflecting a gap between different 
views in the WG, which, in the fullness of time, we will bridge.

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:23:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:38 UTC