W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Agenda TC 18/02/2009

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:44:35 +0000
Message-Id: <3AE714B8-DEED-40CB-A6FE-937B31A55ECB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Just a reminder that we don't have agreement on some rather  
substantial aspects of this document.

I'm reluctant to put in another review without some disposition of my  
prior reviews.

Here's two:
	1) I do not think the syntax productions should be in this document.
	2) I do not think that the appendix:
	is appropriate as it stands.	I took an action wrt this:
	which, afaict, has fallen into the bit bucket.

At the moment, without some attention to these and other similar  
issues, I would not agree to another round of publication. This isn't  
to say that I insist on "winning' on these issues per se, certainly  
not for another WD. But I will oppose another WD without some  
attention to the substantial, in group, feedback that I have given.

I'm happy to elaborate on either of these two (for a start) in email  
and then do a fresh review of the document.

I agree that it's a useful document that garnered some positive  
feedback from this round of last call. That is not at issue here, at  
all. The LC feedback doesn't rule out either of my points above and  
some of it...e.g., how people viewed the Use cases...support my  

I'm happy to delay this discussion until after the LC comments are  
disposed with. In fact, I ask for the chairs to make clear when we  
are going to turn back to NF&R.

Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 10:41:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC