- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:44:03 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Dec 2008, at 19:11, Sandro Hawke wrote: [snip] > RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester > Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the > future > we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (ISSUE-139). > > -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/ > 2008-08-27#resolution_4 > > Nonetheless, it was my understanding (not remembering that resolution) > that it would be a NOTE, so I wrote in the SOTD last week: > > The Working Group expects this document, when done, to be a > Working > Group Note, not a W3C Recommendation. As expressed in the document > conformance clause, OWL systems are not required to read or write > this syntax. > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-manchester- > syntax-20081202/ > > I apologize if I did so in error. I guess, procedurally, the only question is whether this SOTD precluded a call for exclusions. IIRC (and I'm going off the cuff) there needs to be a 90 day period for members to respond to a call for exclusions, thus, if this SOTD meant that that call didn't go out, then we maybe artificially precluding a rec track option (since we might run out of time). > We should talk about this soon and > make a proper decision. Indeed. > When Alan and Ian and I were planning this agenda, it seemed to us > like > the User Facing Documents could be decided at the same time (as you > requested), but there was no need for Manchester to be in that set. I agree entirely. > The > reasoning about whether it is Rec track or not seems different, > since it > has normative content. Yes. > Procedurally, I'd rather not try to change the agenda at this point, That's fine. > especially since both Ian and Alan are (rather suddenly) expecting > to be > out this week. I'm planning to chair the meeting, unless one of them > has another last-minute change of plans and can chair after all. Thanks for the clarification. I'm fine with no agenda change. I do ask for the further clarification as to whether the exclusion issue is an issue. Also, I would be interested in what people thought? As I said, I see arguments both ways, but have been getting a bit more pro-rec-track feedback than I was before. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 19:41:04 UTC