- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:36:18 -0400
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I have been asked by people in a couple of organizations to go public with some comments I have made off line. The charter for this Working Group [1] says: > The working group will deliver an Extended Web Ontology Language > (OWL 1.1) specification as a W3C Recommendation. The specification > will include (at least) the following components. > ... > Requirements: > A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated > the design of OWL 1.1. > I realize that some in the WG don't feel this means that all of the documents specified must be rec track, but I and several other members of the AC who asked for these documents to be included at the time of chartering clearly expect that the overall recommendation will include all of the components in some form or another. As the WG has decided to make several of these into separate documents, I would clearly expect those documents to be rec track. This is not meant to be a process argument at this point in time, rather to say that to a number of people in the W3C AC these were important things and thus deciding not to make them rec track s a decision that should be made carefully, and the WG should be prepared with a strong argument to counter negative feedback if the decision is made not to include these in the Rec Track document set. I was making these comments with respect to the Requirements document, but I note that I would encourage the WG to move to Rec Track ALL of the documents specified in the charter Jim Hendler AC Rep RPI [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 14:36:55 UTC