- From: Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:26:42 +0100
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
In fact none of the "Relationships" items are intended to be regular -- they just look that way because we regularly fail to get to them. When we do eventually get to them, the initial goal is to establish mechanisms. Subsequently, I would expect that we will only occasional agenda items. Ian On 23 Oct 2007, at 19:18, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > > Ian, > > My goal in bringing this up was to point out the dependency and > potential > overlap between ODM and OWL revised. Because of that, it would be > good > to create a formal relationship that can be tapped when (if) we > need to > address these issues in the future. However, there is no need to > create > a regular item for this in the agenda (as was done in some other > groups). > ODM is not undergoing any major changes anymore and so there would be > little on which to report (although there are still quite a few open > issues against the UML -> OWL mapping chapter which will be addressed > in the coming months). > > Of course, if the UML and MOF metamodel in the OWL1.1 submission were > to disappear en-route to LC then the overlap would also disappear. In > any case, I don't see an urgent need to address this tomorrow. > > -Evan > > > Ian Horrocks wrote: >> Evan, >> >> Relationships with other W3C groups is a charter "expectation", hence >> the agenda item. I for one would be more than happy to establish >> relationships with groups outside W3C. I'm not sure that we will have >> time to discuss this in tomorrow's teleconf, but I will add an item >> to the agenda in the expectation that it will be postponed but not >> forgotten. >> >> Ian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 21:26:58 UTC