- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:16:43 -0500 (EST)
- To: ivan@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I was very careful not to mention the recommendation status of any of the documents in the "Roadmap". I did explicitly say that several documents were non-normative, and I believe that these statements are correct. I do not believe that there is currently any direct correspondence between normative and rec-track. (In fact, I remember that my attempts to tie these together were not accepted by the working group.) Further, I am against any attempt to change the Primer, NC&R, or the QRG to be normative. I did not explicitly mention the normative status of the Conformance and Manchester Syntax documents in the "RoadMap". This is largely a matter of forgetting to do so. peter From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Subject: Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:43 +0100 > Peter, > > concerning the roadmap section, my recollections on the status of > documents is a bit different. AFAIK, the WG has decided: > > - the features and rationale is a normative document (ie, rec track) > - the quick reference is rec track > - conformance and test cases is rec track > > For all these cases the text at least suggests that these are not rec > track documents. Indeed, the reading is that only the documents listed > in the bulleted items are rec track a.k.a. normative (and they all > indeed are at the moment!) > > Based on the LC comments the WG might decide to reconsider some of these > statuses, but that is the current situation in my recollection. I may > have a bad memory, though, all warranty is lost over 50 (which is > certainly my case:-) > > I am o.k. with the generic Abstract text. I think the version for the > syntax document should be finalized after our discussions at the f2f on > the 'naming' issues. > > Thanks! > > Ivan > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> Hi: >> I have put together a revised abstract preamble that does not define OWL >> 2 as a diff from OWL 1 (as suggested by Ivan). I've also put together a >> terse document guide that could go at the beginning of documents. I've >> put both of these up in the drafting area for LC comment 10, at >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 >> peter >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2009 15:17:07 UTC