Re: Votes to advance documents to LC and CR

Sandro - the agenda says:

>        * Determining CR exit criteria
>          * PROPOSED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style
> Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics,
> Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication
> as Candidate Recommendations

and this seems to me to not allow time for substantive discussion of  
the CR exit criteria - however if we go with what has become the  
normal procedure, we would vote on the "ready for publication as  
Candidate Recommendations" - but not on submitting the proposal to  
advance (including the exit criteria) to the Director until a later  
time when it has been reviewed by the WG.   RPI would not object in  
that case.  However,  if the above is taken to mean that there will  
not be a later review, then I have to instruct Jie to formally object  
(which I'd rather not do).

In principle, I agree with  the gist of what you say below - but of  
course the devil is in the details-  I want to see some extra criteria  
on the exit from CR as e had in the first OWL group, and I don't think  
those can be worked out in a short time on this telecon -- I believe  
the ideas I have  will be easily met by current implementations - I'm  
just trying to make sure we can help reduce confusion by pointing at  
very specific things during PR

I also apologize for bringing this up so late, for some reason I was  
thinking that we were voting on CR on June 1 and that there was more  
time, I hope this makes RPI's position clear, and I hope people  
understand that I am trying to find room for consensus - Again, we  
would very much like not to end up objecting to this document

  -JH
p.s. with respect to other documents, Jie has been instructed to vote  
as he thinks fit.


On May 19, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>> we have been trying to decide how we will vote on these -- I'd like  
>> to
>> remind the WG that a move to CR includes a decision about the  
>> specific
>> exit criterion -
> ...
>> p.s. for those who are looking for this in the process document,  
>> "exit
>> criteria" are known as "Criteria for entrance to Proposed
>> Recommendation"
>
> As I read the Process Document, it doesn't actually say this, but  
> you're
> right that in practice it's something we should probably do.  The  
> guide
> for organizing a recommendation track transition [1] says we should
> decide, among other things:
>
>    Are there any implementation requirements beyond the defaults of  
> the
>    Process Document? For instance, is the expectation to show two
>    complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances,
>    each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented
>    twice in some piece of software?
>
> As I recall, in WebOnt (OWL 1) took the latter option, and framed it  
> in
> terms of test cases instead of features.  That is, for each
> non-extra-credit test, there had to be at least two implementations
> reporting passing that test.
>
> I like that approach for us to use, too.  It may be that we need to
> approve some more tests, to make sure we have at least one test per
> feature.  I don't think we need to do that before entering CR (WebOnt
> was approving new test cases all through CR), but we'll need some  
> quiet
> time at the end, for folks can try to pass the newest tests.
>
> And perhaps we should say something about profiles, too?  I wouldn't
> mind us saying that for each profile there will be two "native"
> implementations, two systems implementing that profile and taking
> advantage of it being less than DL.  (They could take advantage in
> whatever sense they like -- performance, ease of implementations,  
> etc.)
> I don't think we need to tie that to test cases; it would just be that
> our implementation report [2] will have at least two entries for each
> native profile (DL, EL, QL, and RL).
>
> Is that what you're looking for, Jim?
>
>> and we think that may influence our decision making -
>> when will the proposed CR exit criteria be discussed/published?  We
>> might (and I stress might) be willing to abstain, as opposed to
>> objecting, to some documents depending on the specifics of these
>> criteria - if the upcoming vote is just on whether we believe LC has
>> been successfully done, that is one thing, but a formal move to CR is
>> another, and these should be discussed.
>>  -Jim Hendler
>>   AC Rep RPI
>
> Is there some reason to conclude LC without simultaneously moving to  
> CR?
> I'm not sure what that would mean.
>
> Can you express, in a sentence or two, the core of the objection  
> you're
> considering?  In particular, is it about the technical design of OWL 2
> -- some language feature that's hard to implement, not motivated,  
> etc --
> or about the user base and market?  Even more in particular, what do  
> you
> realistically think the WG could do to address your concerns?
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr#transreq
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations

"Con un poco de semántica ya se consigue ir muy lejos"

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler, @jahendler,  
twitter
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 22:21:29 UTC