Re: Status of OWL 2 Profiles

In case you haven't been following - I said that I am willing to  
approve the documents to CR if I see appropriate exit criteria.  I am  
in discussion with the chairs on that.  I don't believe the profile  
document alone answers the issues I've raised re: the confusion I  
believe the profiles could cause -  right now there is discussion of  
the profiles  in profiles,  primer, and NF&R, and there's test cases  
about them - there will also be CR results.  My concern is that the  
entire package of all these needs to be thought of together as "what  
the profiles are" and I feel the document as is, without all the other  
things, doesn't answer the many concerns I've raised.  I believe that  
appropriate CR criteria and appropriate editing in the other documents  
(which can happen during LC as it won't change technical details) may  
be sufficient to address the issues I've raised.  Thus, I would not be  
willing to put the current document through to a Director's Request at  
this time, however I am not opposed to agreeing that the LC has shown  
the technical details of the design to be stable and to address  the  
technical issues raised.
  I don't believe I've been at all inconsistent in my discussion of  
this, nor should I have to justify my position again - it is all on  
record.
  -JH


On May 20, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I am puzzled as to what changes are thought to be needed in the  
> Profiles
> document?  I have not been able to find any suggested changes or even
> indications of deficiencies in the Profiles document in any recent
> messages to the WG.  Absent any indication of what needs to be  
> changed,
> I am very puzzled as to why the Profiles document should not be
> considered to be "ready for the CR publication step".
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Profiles
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:31:46 -0500
>
>> Ian
>>
>> I noticed the changes in Profiles, and thank editors for  
>> incorporating
>> our comments.
>>
>> As you may see from Jim's posts, from RPI point of view, we believe
>> Profiles still need some work before LC, although it is an excellent
>> document in many other ways. I'm sorry to say this, but that's not a
>> personal choice.
>>
>> Jie
>>
>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Ian Horrocks
>> <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Dear Achille and Jie,
>>>
>>> As LC1 reviewers of Profiles can you please take a *very* quick  
>>> look at the
>>> latest version and confirm that you are OK with any minor changes  
>>> that may
>>> have occurred since the 1st Last Call and that, in your opinion, the
>>> document is "CR-ready".
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jie Bao
>> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
>>
>

"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 Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:41:35 UTC