RE: Punning discussion

Thanks for the pointer, Alan!

So, in our case of OWL-Full, a break from backwards compatibility to OWL-1.0-Full would be allowed in principle. Even to not have in OWL-1.1-Full "a clear syntax, and a clear semantics" for "all new features" (I referred to the charter here) would be allowed.

But may I interpret the definition of "SHOULD" in the way that not having backwards compatibility or not supporting all new features would need clear and detailed rational, which gets publicly documented? And further, may I assume that, if a solution can be created within the given time constraints of the WG charter, which actually meets the "SHOULD" goals, then this solution MUST NOT be dropped without having an alternative solution, which also matches the "SHOULD" goals? 

It's important for me to have a reasonably clear and authoritative answer to these questions, since I intend to invest considerable time and effort in helping the WG to produce an RDF compatible semantics for OWL-1.1.

In order to receive such an answer soon, or at least to hear what the general opinions are, may I suggest to have OWL-Full to be generally discussed în the telecon on 6th February (the week after next)?

Regards,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanr@mumble.net] 
>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:54 AM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: Bijan Parsia; OWL Working Group WG
>Subject: Re: Punning discussion
>
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
>On Jan 25, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>
>> So my question to you or to the many people around, which are more  
>> experienced in W3C WG activities than me (i.e. everyone else): Is  
>> there any documented meaning of the word "SHOULD" in the W3C?