- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 22 Apr 2003 12:41:50 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 10:01, Jim Hendler wrote: > There is clearly enough interest in the group that we should reopen > this discussion. As I stated before, the chairs' general position is > that post LC we should have a very high level of consensus before > making such a change, and also that we should aim for the minimum > change we can The minimum change I can see is to figure out a better rationale for striking them from DAML, now that the "there are no use cases" bit isn't true any more. So one position is ala... PROPOSED: to close 3.2 by keeping qualified restrictions out of OWL because... maybe the value of adding it at this point in the schedule is outweighed by the slippage costs, the costs of explaining it, etc. (any change that will satisfy the commentor?) If we're to change the design, I would like to see a pretty complete proposal: PROPOSED: to address 3.2 by specifying a mechanism for qualified restrictions as follows: * ... proposed example for guide * ... test cases (if guide example isn't enough to catch some subtleties) * ... S&AS text, at least a sketch * ... text for reference, at least a sketch further, as Jim says, a proposal for this change should ideally either say... to schedule another last call review, perhaps starting DD MMM YYY thru DD MMM YYY or to cite XYZ as evidence of wide review and consensus for this design. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 13:41:48 UTC