- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:04:10 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
2009/2/23 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: > 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... YES, I was absent during the vote (because of electricty failure) but read the Resolution in the Minutes of 10 December 2008 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-12-10 BTW small typo:s/NC&R / NF&R ! > 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 > -- Christine
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 13:04:45 UTC