Re: Charter for WG (was Re: FOL versus Rule Languages - A tutorial)

> At 17:07 -0400 8/27/05, Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>  All- I'm running out the door, not back for a few days -- but looking
> >>  at the recent mail, Dieter's comments, etc - it seems to me there is
> >>  a convergence on a "compromise" space occuring -- the charter as
> >>  written could be changed in a few simple ways to, basically, allow
> >>  the WG to work out some of the details - the compromise space may
> >>  live somewhere around here:
> >
> >Jim,
> >I don't think that "compromise" is the right word. It implies that there is
> >a clash of political interests, while I was naively thinking that we were
> >discussing technical issues.
> >
> >I would use the term "agreement on technical issues," and I still don't see
> >it happening.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Mike - forgive me, but you and I clearly have opposite ideas about 
> this discussion.   I thought the goal was to charter a working group 
> and let the technical discussions be made there as is the W3C policy. 


I agree about the purpose of the charter. But the problem was that the
charter draft had technically problematic aspects. This is where
compromising was the wrong thing to do.


	--michael  


> I see now that this email list has become a research discussion of 
> topics relating to rules (which is what I thought rdf-rules was for) 
> and has drifted from any discussion of charters and the like.
>   As such, I will leave the discussion and check back in when a new 
> draft of a charter is circulated.
>    -Jim H.
> 
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler			  Director
> Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
> UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
> College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/~hendler
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 14:48:04 UTC