Re: abstract preamble and "guide to documents" (LCC 10, ...)

Peter,

we have to check this today or tomorrow. My recollection that NC&R is on 
rec track and so is QRG. We may want to change that, discuss this, but 
that is another matter...

As for the term 'normative' vs rec-track: for the general audience these 
two terms will largely mean the same. Ie, non-using these terms 
essentially interchangeably will lead to confusion in my view.

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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

-- 

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