- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:10:33 -0400
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Cc: edbark@nist.gov, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> Dear all,
>
> sorry, I did not know that the draft was not indented to be discussed at
> this email
> list. It is slightly surprising since the draft recommends to discuss
> technical issues
> related to it at this mailing list. I will post my comments to an internal
> W3C lists and
> hope the draft agenda is soon open to public discussions. I think it needs
> it desperately.
>
> -- dieter
Sorry, no, this confusion is my fault. The draft *is* public, and
this mailing is fine for discussing it. It had not yet been
announced, however, because I wanted to give the AC a little time to
react first. (We're still refining this process, and it can be
complicated.)
The only thing I'd avoid on this list are points like:
> These languages are neither
> justified by a proven body of research nor by a body of implemented
> reasoners nor industrial experience. It is quite hard to understand why W3C
> wants to commit to such enterprises?
Maybe I'm reading that text incorrectly, but I think it's an argument
that it would be best for the W3C to take a particular course of
action. And *that* kind of argument really belongs in the advisory
committee (probably *after* any technical disagreements are made very
clear) because such decisions are their territory.
I'm working on a reply to your e-mail in which I try to isolate the
technical elements, as I understand them.
-- sandro
Received on Monday, 22 August 2005 17:10:52 UTC