RE: Changes to make S&AS consistent with RDF Semantics document

>This is not specifically addressed at any particular message in this
>thread, but as chair I want to step in and point something out:
> Every one of you is supposed to have read the Process document and 
>to abide by it.   If you go review what is meant by Last Call, Candidate
>Rec, Proposed Rec etc. you will see that from my chairs' perspective that
>the current conversation is a bit odd
>  No more design is allowed now - period!  We can fix bugs, but if there
>is a major problem in a document, then our only choice is to go back to
>before Last Call, change the document, and go through the last 6 months
>all over again.  I don't want to do that!   Several of the things HErman
>suggested were changes that were editorial change to be commensurate with
>RDF and those were well worth doing and were done. 

Jim: I would like to emphasize that none of the suggestions that I 
made in this thread was intended to change the design.  The purpose was
to make the changes needed to make S&AS consistent with the RDF Semantics
document, as the title of the thread suggests.
There is one case where I proposed a change which I expected to leave
the semantics the same, in the same way as a similar change in the
RDF semantics did, but which Peter discovered would
change the design of OWL Full, and when this change was undone I said:
>>That this would change the semantics, is indeed an objective
>>reason for undoing the change.
>>I can live with the current version of this definition. 

>But some of what you
>folks are arguing are design changes -- and those would require us to go
>back a number of steps.

There seem to be two misunderstandings in the discussion of yesterday
that may lead to the impression that changes to the design were discussed:
I based my understanding of the design of OWL semantics on S&AS, but 
my statements based on this led Peter and Jeremy to say that I was
making proposals to change the design.  The problem that seems to arise is
that, with respect to XMLLiteral, the design of the OWL semantics
does not yet seem to be completely correctly represented in S&AS,
see my next message.

>  I'm pretty sure no one is arguing for this - but I want to make it 
>to outsiders that even though we are discussing things about this 
>- we are NOT proposing to actually make these changes at this time - we
>already made our decision to move to PR and have told the W3C what that
>document is.  If we find some errors in it, we can produce an errata
>  SO please, be careful not to convey the idea that we are discussing an
>error in our design - discussing the "research" to create a new model
>theory is interesting and wonderful (although rdf-logic would be a better
>place for it).  Discussing minor editorial things we could catch now if
>(and only if) we can do it before publication is finalized is also okay
>(but they may not get into the document until they are released as
>errata).  Suggesting major changes at this time is out of order unless 
>are absolutely sure that you have discovered something new, horrible (you
>cannot live with it), and that it would be worth taking 6 months to fix.
>Because that is what the process restrictions are on us at this time
> -JH
>p.s. If you don't like the above, please go reread our charter that you
>signed up for -- we are not writing a research paper that wants to be
>state of the art 

>-- we are editing a document that is an adequate
>description of the language we have designed 

For S&AS, this seems to be an issue.  See my next mail.

-- these are not the same


Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 07:08:35 UTC