- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:24:36 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Can it be closed as postponed, adding the comments Peter and Jeremy suggest? This would leave it to future generations to publish the errata if desired. On literal reading, I don't see publishing errata on the old documents as part of this charter, as sensible as it might be. Perhaps Sandro/Ivan might comment on how such issues have been handled in the past. -Alan On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> > Subject: Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-57: errata on OWL 1.0 documents > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:47:03 +0100 > >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> I propose to close ISSUE-57 as none of the problematic pieces of >>> the OWL 1.0 documents survive in the OWL 2 documents. >>> peter >>> >> >> No. >> >> While peter is correct in the observation, the issue also lists a >> number >> of comments which might merit errata against the OWL 1 docs, and I >> think >> this group should at some point consider them, and make errata on the >> OWL 1 docs as required. >> >> i.e. we have some obligation for on-going maintenance of the OWL1 >> specs, >> even though our primary task is OWL2. > > Is approving errata for the OWL 1 documents in our scope of operations > at all? I was assuming that it was not. > >> Jeremy > > peter >
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 17:25:19 UTC