W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: review of XML in 10 points [was: AGENDA...]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:06:49 -0500
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, janet@w3.org, bert@w3.org, em@w3.org, liam@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011206190649Q.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: review of XML in 10 points [was: AGENDA...]
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:20:10 -0600

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> [...]
> > As of 13 November 2001 time several relevant W3C groups were in existence,
> > including the Semantic Web Coordination Group, the RDF Core Working Group,
> > and the Web Ontology Working Group, but I do not believe that the paragraph
> > was passed by any of them for comments until yesterday.
> And then only because you happened to notice it, not
> really because we invited review...

Actually it was passed by the SWCG in an e-mail message, so there was some
official review.  I'm not sure who initiated the review. 

> >  Now I hear that
> > this document is supposed to be printed in large numbers this weekend for
> > distribution next week.  Wouldn't it have been nice to give those who might
> > know something about the topic more time to work on a better wording?
> Yes, it would. Your point is well made. But again, it's not
> constructive. I don't have a time machine to go back
> and do that.

Hopefully changes can be made for similar stuff in the future, which is why
I brought this up.

> If you feel that disseminating this information in this
> form would cause more harm than good -- and I might agree --
> I can probably kill the idea of printing it and handing
> it out at the conference.
> Or I could probably get the RDF/SW stuff deleted from
> "XML in 10 points" altogether before it's printed.

I definitely feel that it is a good idea to get some SW in there ...

> Or you could phone me and we could work on better wording
> urgently (50 min left in my workday today). There's
> some chance of working on it tomorrow.

... so I'm willing to put some effort in it.  A phone call now is not in
the cards, as I have other things to do just now.   I'll try to put
together a modification this evening though.

> There are any number of ways to move forward; I'll
> see what I can do about them.
> But please let's trust that everybody's doing their
> level best here, OK? There are a lot of working
> groups, a lot of conferences, and a lot of web
> pages to keep in sync.

Agreed, but one would think that the RDF Core WG, at least, would be on the
A-list for new stuff in a very popular document for changes that first
bring RDF into the document.

> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 19:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:25 UTC