- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:28:56 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Alan pointed out to me that there was a subsequent version, or perhaps alternative versions, put forth by the chairs: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0170.html> This is referenced by the agenda: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.24/Agenda> The main difference is in: 3) We will decide whether to publish some or all of the updated documents as First Public Working Drafts either shortly before or during the first F2F meeting. My proposal is that we decide to publish all 3 documents as soon as technically feasible. The strongest version of this proposal that seems to have no opposition, and some support from people otherwise opposed, is to publish the Formal Semantics document alone as a FPWD as soon as possible, and decide closer to the first F2F whether to publish initial drafts for review of the other two documents (perhaps extensively annotated with issue marking). If there is, as I believe, consensus on publishing the Semantics document now, I still think that has the benefits I described. If the chairs would like to put only that part of the question to the group, I have no problem with that, though, I'll point out that I don't agree with the grounds of most of the opposing points. Indeed, I think they are very weak. So my agreement to this change does not reflect my being remotely convinced by the arguments as given. However, it's clear that enough people are very strongly opposed, for whatever reason, that we probably can't get consensus to publish all three. And it seems we've spent enough time. So I would propose a 3' which is: 3') We will publish a FPWD of the formal semantics document as soon as the technical details are cleared. We will decide whether to publish the rest of the core formal documents as First Public Working Drafts either shortly before or during the first F2F meeting. If people are strongly opposed to this friendly amendment, I urge you to just say so. I don't think further elaboration is necessary or perhaps even helpful at this point. I'll not strongly press falling back to 3. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 14:27:31 UTC