RE: [WNET] Draft summary of WNET proposal document

I had an action, re:

http://www.w3.org/2004/06/10-swbp-irc#T14-16-05

to prepare  a summary of Wordnet proposal doc to be reviewed by the 
TF members an then sent to WNET developers. I did it informally at 
last telecon, and in a formatted way this time. In this editor draft 
I alsomention the draft note on an rdfs datamodel for Princeton 
WordNet among other issues. I refer to your [1], then edited by me, 
as a specific work on the datamodel. No replacement then.

I do not see any source of confusion. it is a preliminary thing that 
should contain -as explained inside- the way to procede and the 
appropriate links. The action is now on, but the document will be 
updated during the work.

Possibly this editor draft could eventually result as redundant, 
given the TF description and the related ongoing documents. If so, it 
won't survive.

I have included your name bona fide, as well as for the other 
components, in the role of active contributors.

Please help me with suggestions on the most formal aspects of W3C 
notes, but if you do not want to appear as coeditor, no problem. I 
have assumed, as in most scientific research, that common work and 
contributions should be recognised. Now I learn about the etiquette 
thing. All right.

Once more, I recommend a good practice in general. Provided etiquette 
is respected, let's concentrate on actual research contributions, in 
order to avoid the frequent complaint made to standard bodies and 
consensus committees to be too *self-referential*.

Cheers
Aldo


At 21:56 +0100 8-07-2004, McBride, Brian wrote:
>Aldo,
>
>I don't understand your intention with this document.  It reads like a
>description of what the TF is going to do and how it is going to go about
>it.  I wasn't envisaging we would publish a note of that sort.  I thought
>we'd publish a note describing Princeton Wordnet expressed on Owl.  I did a
>very bare first cut at that in [1] as a placeholder for further work.
>
>Is it your intention that this new document replaces that one?  Or is it a
>different document with a different purpose.  I looked up the task force
>description [2] but that isn't specific about what notes you are planning to
>produce.
>
>I'm confused.  Putting my name down as co-editor may be a bit premature.
>
>Brian
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0010.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/tf
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it]
>>  Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:56 PM
>>  To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>>  Cc: swick@w3.org; brian.mcbride@hp.com; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>  Subject: Re: [WNET] Draft summary of WNET proposal document
>>
>>  Please find a formatted version of the draft summary of the
>>  WordNet proposal:
>>
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jul/0020.html
>>
>>  It is still to be filled with the many desicions and issues raised in
>>  today's telecon. I have eagerly accepted the offering by Brian to act
>>  as an editor ;))
>>
>>  Best
>>  Aldo
>>  --
>>  Aldo Gangemi
>>  Research Scientist
>>  Laboratory for Applied Ontology
>>  Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
>>  National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
>>  Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
>>  Tel: +390644161535
>>  Fax: +3906824737
>>  a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
>>


-- 
Aldo Gangemi
Research Scientist
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +3906824737
a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 19:45:08 UTC