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

Re: F2F: The requirements vote

From: Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:09:27 -0700
Message-ID: <03f501c1a04b$46035760$220ea485@KRUSTY>
To: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I second Frank's comments here since any language based upon the staw poll
that we did would be a very strange bird, indeed (one of the failures of
straw polls, unfortunately).

One of the things that we need to think very strongly about (and reflect in
our documentation) is not only why we chose certain features/requirements,
but also why we explicitly or implicitly rejected others. This is the only
basis by which someone evaulating the language for potential use can make a
real, informed decision.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
To: "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2002 6:42 am
Subject: Re: F2F: The requirements vote

> 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
> > 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
> 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.
> Frank.
>    ---
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 11:06:41 UTC

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