One Last SWBPD WG Telecon Coming Soon

Hi all,

This message forwards a discussion regarding the state of the Time  
Ontology editors' draft to the WG list.  The chairs and Team Contact  
are attempting to get a working group decision regarding the Time  
Ontology draft shortly and anticipate needing one last WG telecon to  
do that.  That telecon will also formally close the WG.

Guus and I would appreciate attendance by anyone who can make it to  
ensure that we have quorum.  We will endeavor to announce a time  
shortly.  Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Dave


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
> From: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
> Date: 24 July , 2006 10:05:08 EDT
> To: Ralph R.Swick <swick@w3.org>
> Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Chris Welty  
> <cawelty@frontiernet.net>, w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org, Feng Pan  
> <pan@ISI.EDU>, Jerry Hobbs <hobbs@ISI.EDU>
> Subject: Re: SWBPB Time Ontology editor's draft
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> If I understand correctly, we are going to try to accomplish these  
> things, in order:
>
> A)  Feng and Jerry to respond to Guus' suggestions regarding  
> "hasBeginning" in the Time Ontology editors' draft [1] , at their  
> sole editorial discretion:
>
> On 23 Jul2006, at 18:00, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Suggestions similar to earlier remarks about "hasBeginning": it  
>> seems that the
>> property names for durationDescriptionOf and dateTimeDescriptionOf
>> are the wrong way around.  If you use the left-to-right reading it  
>> should be
>>
>>   TemporalEntity hasDurationDescription DurationDescription
>>   TemporalEntity hasDateTimeDescription DateTimeDescription
>>
>> Alternatively, you could just drop the "Of" ending of the current  
>> property name,
>> which should prevent confusion.
>
>
>
> B)  Feng and Jerry to change the Time Zone Resource in OWL [2]  
> editors' draft into an appendix for the Time Ontology draft (or  
> tell us that they don't want to do that).
>
>
> C)  The chairs or editors to notify members of the WG by email when  
> the final Time Ontology editors' draft is available online.
>
> D)  Guus and David to schedule a telecon to both get a WG decision  
> on the new, expanded Time Ontology editors' draft and to close the WG.
>
> Is that right?  Please speak now if I have something wrong so we  
> can get this tied up.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>   [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/Time- 
> Ontology-20060518
>   [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/Time-Zone
>
>
>
> On 24 Jul2006, at 08:56, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
>> At 12:11 AM 7/24/2006 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>> I just sent the long overdue message about the Time Ontology note  
>>> [1].
>>
>> great.  I just replied to that message.
>>
>>> When talking to
>>> Chris on Friday I didn't realize no WG decision had been taken,  
>>> foolish of me. I wonder
>>> whether we can still try to get this via email. Or we could have  
>>> a short call, also for
>>> formally closing the group.
>>
>> I'd prefer a short call, exactly to do those two things.  But I'd  
>> accept
>> an email poll if a call can't be arranged with enough participants
>> sure to attent.
>>
>>> I do not see the Time Zone doc as crucial, as it is mainly
>>> a listing of the time zones and does not really add any new  
>>> concepts. I see it more as an
>>> appendix.
>>
>> good point.  Was the suggestion to make it an appendix made
>> before?  I put that suggestion into my response to the WG,
>> attributing the idea to "someone else" so as not to be appearing
>> to take credit for it, though I completely support the idea.
>

Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 18:33:21 UTC