- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:57:33 +0100
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I found Bijan's summary helpful. I think reasons 1-4 are good reasons for publishing semantics as FPWD and reason 5 could go either way (cf G) ... I wished to comment on B and H [[ B) People expressed the desire for more group review before publishing anything. The consequential benefits haven't been clearly enumerated to my ken. ]] Jim argued this most effectively - this is the normal W3C WG process, and there is nothing so strange about this WG that we should behave differently. As an example to do with the semantics doc. HP has a view that the n-ary datatypes design (which I guess is in that doc) is broken. We have stated this on a number of occassions. Currently that does not seem to be in an issue list, and until we have well-functioning WG issue list it probably won't be. As HP rep, I am happy with a doc that includes n-ary datatype design to be FPWD, but only if it is clear that the publication does not suggest that this is consensus design, ideally with a pointer to an issue list item, expressing HP's concern, and say including a pointer to our technical report concerning the design. During a WG review I could agree text to that effect with the editor. This presupposes that the WG is slightly more advanced in its internal processes than it is now. off the top of my head, satisfactory text could be: In the SOTD, "This document does yet reflect a consensus of the OWL WG - a (currently non-exhaustive) list of issues concerning the design is found at **URL**, of which the following are particular pertinent: - N-ary datatypes - - ??? - - ??? - Later versions of this document will change as WG consensus is reached. " I think the problem for me with the RDF Mapping, and perhaps for Elisa with the MOF, is that the issues (at least from the nay-sayers point of view) are so all embracing that the last sentence, which while stictly not invalidated with a total rewrite, would at least be confusing: the sort of document which we can imagine as a consensus doc would be too far away from the current doc, to be a respectable later version, as opposed to a different document. Benefits of B: a) this is the normal process - deviating from normal process requires justification. Benefit: risk minimization. b) allows WG to influence doc before publication, so that public have a better feel for the WG position, rather than the member submission permission, which is already public c) adds to WG sense of ownership of document, which currently belongs to the members who made the submission [[ H) I got another email stating that WDs should either reflect the state of consensus or be clearly labeled as lacking that. ]] I hadn't realised there was a proposal not to do this. Certainly the expectation is that a WD published by a WG, while a work-in-progress, does reflect WG consensus unless labelled as not doing so; and even if labelled as not a consensus, a WD does reflect the most likely direction of progress. Benefits of H: a) if a WD does not document any lack of consensus, then the readers are likely to assume a consensus b) any WG participants whose voice is not reflected at all in WD will feel marginalized and disempowered, undermining good WG process c) if a WD appears to include a complete design and no disagreement, then any reviewers of FPWD might (unrealistically) expect a LC in three months or less. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 14:58:12 UTC