- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
[snip] > * Jim expressed opposition to the structural specification *per se*: > <http://www.w3.org/mid/F9A27E86-A5E8-4D40-8E77- > FE17CF9F0247@cs.rpi.edu> > > I'm unclear whether this means he objects to its publication for > review. I object to its publication for review prior to further WG discussion (for now that is "object" in the sense of don't agree, if pushed it can become "object" in the WG sense, but I hope that won't be necessary given that there seems to be support for the idea of more internal review) > > He also expressed some criticism about the RDF Mapping: > <http://www.w3.org/mid/ > A98D4B0B-4CC3-4FC8-9B56-41B641DF047D@cs.rpi.edu> > > But I'm also unclear whether this means he objects to publication for > review. ditto [snip] > > Corrections or friendly amendments are most welcome. Since I cannot be on the phone let me be very. very clear - I endorse fully what Ian and Alan have proposed in http:// lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0170.html -- a method for more WG review before publication, a strong push for publication at or near the first f2f dates (my summary of their words) - so I vote "YES" on that proposal. -Jim Hendler
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 14:30:47 UTC