- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: cooling-off periods Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:34:37 +0100 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> > > Subject: Re: cooling-off periods > > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:41:13 +0100 > > > >> Peter noted: > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> I take Jim as opposing that proposal, and given the chairs' decision to > >> cancel the previous decision in this area, I would also oppose this > > > > Somehow I missed this decision of the chairs. Could you or anyone else > > point to its source? > > > Looking, I can see this is partly interpretation: > > In: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0123 > > > Alan responded to my 0120, seconding Jim's 0110: > > [[ > Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > The purpose of the process is to get consensus of the member > > organizations participating in the WG. In this case, we seem to > > have failed to achieve that, and I think we should void the > > resolution. > > I essentially agree with you. > ]] > > procedurally I took this as Jim objecting to the resolution on > procedural grounds, I seconded Jim's objection, and Alan agreed to the > objection. I note now that the record is less formal than that. > > It would probably help if the chairs clarify whether the decision holds > or not. > > Jeremy I presume that you mean that the decision has been reopened. peter
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 12:41:06 UTC