- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: "at risk" Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:15:48 -0400 > >> >> 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 See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/At_Risk This information is also in the Changes page. peter
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:29:25 UTC