- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:18:58 -0500
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, www-webont-wg@w3.org
great job Evan and Jeremy -- Some edits (despite length of document :->) -- I've snipped eveything that isn't germane to one of these comments - At 18:16 -0500 12/16/03, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > >1.3 Constraining other WGs > >The Web Ontology WG believes that Rec track documents should define >technology and define conformance clauses for software, hardware, and also >specifications, but should not mandate that W3C working groups or specs >must be conformant. > I personally would prefer to delete or edit this clause -- I'm not sure I agree that WGs should define conformance clauses (that's wrong, I'm sure I disagree with this in general) - also, I find the paragraph above a bit ambiguous -- are we saying that QA constrains other groups, that we don't want to constrain others, etc -- So I'm not clear on what we are saying here, and I don't agree with the little bit I do understand... > >1.4 WebOnt did well without the CR QA Framework > ... Extensive tests were >defined and test results are now available [OWL-TEST-RESULTS] for ten >different OWL tools. actually we ended up with more than that (13 or 14 I think - cannot check now as my server is flaky) >WebOnt: >The test cases were not ready for the OWL Last Call, and were published >shortly after. This means that one or two tests in the OWL Test Last Call >reflect last call issue resolutions, rather than the text of the other OWL >last call documents. However, this did not appear to present any difficulties. >It may have been easier if we had been clearer in our planning and had >decided earlier that we would do that. The test document was central in the >Candidate Rec phase, although in practice implementors were encouraged to >work with the public editors' draft of the test document (particularly the >list of proposed, approved and obsoleted tests in the test manifest). This >allowed rapid feedback on WG decisions and new tests. As we approach >Proposed Recommendation, it is arguable that we would have done better if >we had planned for a staggered release, with the test document coming last. >As it is, key conformance clauses are in the test document which prevented >such staggering. > > i'm not 100% sure we'd have been better off staggering the release, but I could live with this... >Document structure - The components of the QA Ops document are not >sufficiently large or independent of each other to justify the >compound structure of this document. I found it quite frustrating to >navigate this version while relating the checkpoints to our WG >actions. Recommend making the single HTML file the normative version >of QAF-OPS. the "I" should be "we" in the above if this is a consensus review by the WG ---- so not many comments for a very long effort -- nice job - and with a little attention to the above (and Dan's notes) I could support the submission of this as a WG review... -JH -- Professor James Hendler http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 16:19:27 UTC