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

Re: WOWG: test document for review

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Oct 2002 11:07:27 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1033661252.13756.673.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 10:46, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Found in www-archive:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Sep/att-0227/00-owl-test-cases.html

Excellent work!

> Specific issues:
> + there are quite a few proposed tests that should be uncontroversial - when
> reviewing this document, how about reviewing the proposed tests as well.

I'm still concerned about having test descriptions serve
as an independetly maintained specification of the language.
I'm pleased to find the descriptions are XHTML; let's
use that flexibility to point from test descriptions to
the relevant section of the spec when possible.

Case in point, test 003:

  If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty, then its inverse
  is an owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.

which part of what spec supports that inference?

I haven't seen *any* semantics proposals in which
that's a valid inference.

Say... where you include the RDF/XML inline, can we have
a link too?

> + in my opinion, the thrust of the document review is about process and
> presentation.

I pretty much like the presentation; I was able to grok with just
a quick read-thru. (Of course, I'm more familiar with the
content and history of the document than the average reader...)

Some "deadly boring" process issues...

Re the section on conflict resolution...

W3C is sorta getting formal about errata processes
and such; we'll need to sync up at some point with
this discussion...

# Please review "How to make normative corrections to Recommendations"
Ian B. Jacobs (Thu, Sep 19 2002)

and process issue 158.

"At the chair's discretion, individual tests or groups of tests are put
to the working group in the weekly telecon or at a
face-to-face meeting."

I don't think we want to constrain how we make decisions on the
test cases; just say:

	Tests are approved by decision of the working group;
	for example, in weekly teleconferences or face-to-face
	meetings; see the _charter_ for more information
	about group decision making.

Hmm... our charter doesn't actually give information about how
we make decisions; I guess it could just be

	See _section 4.1.2 Group Consensus and Votes_
	of [W3C Process] for for more information on
	making decisions in W3C groups.


"There are no patent disclosures related to this work at the time of
this writing."

W3C management decided that this is a legally risky thing to say;
we are to *not* to include a count
of the patent disclosures in the SOTD sections. Just say:

	see also: _patent disclosures related to this work_

> + I wrote some text to restrict the range of RDF/XML syntax used, but I
> personally disagree with it ...

It looks appropriately conservative to me.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 12:07:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:36 UTC