"at risk"

> >> There were 4 At Risks in the 1st last call.  Numbers 2 and 3 are
> >> resolved, leaving 1 and 4.  I like leaving the numbering as is.   
> > 
> > That makes sense, but I think we should explain that in the SOTD.  Maybe
> > a new subheading, like "Features At Risk".  Which documents have At Risk
> > statements?
> 
> Syntax, is the base one, with both AR#1 and AR#4.
> RDF-Based Semantics mentions AR#1.
> Profiles has its own AR - which mentions that there are two AR in Syntax.
> rdf:text has two separate AR - rtfn:compare and rtfn:length
> 
> I think that is all.
> 
> What text should go where?  Perhaps
> 
> There are two At-Risk features in this last call for OWL 2, both having
> to do with datatype support.  The datatype owl:rational is at risk
> (At-Risk #1) and will be removed if there are not implementations that
> support it.  The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral is at risk (At-Risk #4) in the
> functional syntax, and *may* be removed as a result of implementation
> experience.  Comments during the previous last-call period resulted in
> the resolution of two previous at-risk features.

Can we have a wiki page that enumerates 1-4 with a brief explanation on
each one, including saying how 2 and 3 were resolved?  Then the At-Risk
template can link users to that page for more details (including the
story of what finally happened to the item....).

      -- Sandro

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:15:58 UTC