W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: F2F: The requirements vote

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:42:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3C4977B0.596880F@cs.vu.nl>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Enrico Motta wrote:
> Jim,
> for those of us who were not at the meeting, can you provide some
> additional clarification on teh requirement spec for OWL.  I guess the proposed
> requirements are to be interpreted as additional requirements on top of what daml+oil
> already provides.  is this correct? And I guess I should also infer that what is not
> currently in daml+oil and is not listed below is not going to be in OWL.  Is this is
> also a correct inference?

I would like to have it stated clearly on this public mailing list that the straw poll that Jim reported on was really just that, a straw poll. I think this is what Jim meant when he wrote "vote" in emphatic quotes.

As an exercise during the meeting, we tried to prioritise the requirements by collecting rough "votes" in favour or against each of these requirements, but it was stated explicitly that this was an informal poll. It would be very undesirable if the results of the straw poll were now interpreted as a "final and definitive vote on the requirements for OWL". Because of the time pressure of the discussion, many requirements on the list remained unclear to many of those present (including myself). 

So please, go ahead, and interpret the list as a rough first prioritisation, 
but please don't interpret it as a definitive vote.

If anybody present at the meeting disagrees with this,
please let them state so now.

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 08:45:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:26 UTC