Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:06:04 -0500

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 
> > From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
> > Subject: Re: REQDOC: Change List from Editors
> > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:58:32 -0500
> > 
> > >
> > > Would a statement to the effect that "the Working Group reserves the
> > > right to remove or add requirements" help?
> > 
> > Not really.  Wording in the introduction, and elsewhere in the document,
> > has the effect of making the document read like ``revealed truth''.  I
> > would very much like the document not to carry this sort of connotation.
> 
> I am not really sure which part of the documents connote "revealed
> truth." I am currently revising the introduction to tone down the hype,
> and hope that this will partially address your concerns. If you could
> point out sections that you find particularly objectionable and suggest
> alternate wording, that may be the quickest way to fix this issue.

The current version (20 Feb) of the document is *much* better at not
elevating the requirements to commandments.  However, there is still some
of this escalation.  I've reproduced these sections of the document below,
along with possible changes.

peter


This document will enumerate *the* requirements of such a lang[ua]ge. 

  This document will enumerate the current requirements for such a language.

The section on <a href = "#section-requirements">Requirements</a> presents
a minimal set of features that *must* be in the language and gives
motivations for those features.

  The section on <a href = "#section-requirements">Requirements</a> presents
  a set of features that should be in the language and gives
  motivations for those features.

One of the goals of this document is to specify *exactly* what is
needed by a Web Ontology language. 

  One of the goals of this document is to specify what is
  needed in a Web Ontology language. 

The requirements described below are essential to the language.

  The WG currently feels that the requirements described below are
  essential to the language. 

In addition to the *minimal* set of features that *must* be in the
language as defined in the previous section, 

  In addition to the set of features that should be in the
  language as defined in the previous section, 

*At a minimum*, the language 

  The language

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 15:15:42 UTC