- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:10:44 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ian Horrock <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
On 4 May 2012, at 11:05, Ivan Herman wrote: > (Removing some mailing lists from the CC list, because that seems to be a purely OWL, and possibly RIF WG discussion...) > > I am not commenting on the technical issue. The current status of the WG is based on the latest extension of its charter announced in: > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2011OctDec/0066.html Can we use a public reference. > in my reading that does not allow adding new datatypes, or change the semantics of existing ones (except if there are technical issues created by the final version of the XSD document compared to the version we used when OWL 2 was finalized). Technically, I don't see where that's explicitly authorized. I can't quote the member only email to demonstrate this. A narrow reading would forbid even that. A broad reading could allow various tweaks. IOW, if we want to fudge it we can :) > Doing so would not mean an 'edited' OWL 2 document, but a new version instead. That would require rechartering the OWL WG or creating a new group. A quick rechartering wouldn't be so hard, I think, for this narrow point. I'm happy to start thinking about a new group (it's getting toward time). However, I personally hope that the W3C wouldn't be so hidebound and rule entangled to prevent a useful tweak on narrow procedural grounds, esp. when there's a reasonably expansive reading available. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 10:11:17 UTC