Re: Proposed QA Reply (version 2)

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>38. QA Review of owl-semantics
>>Sandro sent proposed reply.
>>ACTION: Jeremy, Jeff.
>>All editors add link from their document to ALL others.
>>


I am sorry I have been remiss in not updating Test Cases recently.
My problem is that, at least in my mind, the first step is to update my 
syntax checker which is used in the building of Test Cases, and somehow 
that task is defeating me at the moment.


> 
> Replacing 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0268.html
> in response to DanC's suggestions
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0367.html
> and removing some material better covered by Jeremy's private reply
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0006.html
> here's my new suggested reply.
> 
> To be clear, I believe we should have a WG decision on this.  We
> didn't really agree that all docs would include "a prominent reference
> to the Document Roadmap"; Jeremy only agreed to consider it.



No, no, I am quite happy copying what somebody else has done and making it 
work in OWL Test.  I am more than happy with the response below.

(Although I am increasingly unhappy about QA's view of what quality is, but 
that's another story).

Jeremy

> ================================================================
> 
> To: karl@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
> Subject: Re: QA Review of owl-semantics
> In-Reply-To: <a05200f02bad5de373280@[10.0.1.3]>
> References: <1051801689.6599.267.camel@dirk.dm93.org> <a05200f02bad5de373280@[10.0.1.3]>
> 
> Dear Karl and QA Working Group members,
> 
> This is a reply from the Web Ontology Working Group (WebOnt) to your
> comments (a QA review) [1] on our Last Call version of "OWL Semantics
> and Abstract Syntax" ("S&AS") [3].  Dan Connolly sent a partial reply
> [2] only to Karl, which left several issues open.  This message
> addresses all issues except checkpoint 13.2 on which the editors are
> contacting you separately.
> 
> First, I need to apologize for us not properly reviewing and
> commenting on your Last Call draft of the "QA Framework: Specification
> Guidelines" [4] before your deadline.  Each point below, addressing
> your comments on our spec is in a sense a comment on your spec.  We
> hope that even at this late date you find our comments helpful.
> 
> 1. We have decided to publish our specification in the form of several
>    documents which are expected to have somewhat different audiences.
>    You have reviewed only one of the six and so missed most of the
>    (informative) background and explanatory material, as well as the
>    (normative) test suite and conformance section.   S&AS [3], the
>    document you reviewed, stated:
> 
> 	    This document is designed to be read by those interested
> 	    in the technical details of OWL. It is not particularly
> 	    intended for the casual reader, who should probably first
> 	    read the OWL Guide [OWL Guide]. 
> 
>    However, your comments suggested to us that the overall picture of
>    the OWL documents was not sufficiently obvious. The WG therefore
>    decided to include in all OWL recommendation-track documents both
>    (1) a statement that the document is one part of a set of
>    documents, and (2) a prominent reference to the Document Roadmap in
>    "OWL Overview" [5].
> 
>    We believe many checkpoints not met by S&AS alone are fully met by
>    the OWL specification as a whole.  These include (in the order
>    given by your review) 1.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5, 10.1, 13.1, 1.4, 3.1,
>    13.4, 14.1, 14.2, and 2.3.  Most of these are addressed in OWL Test
>    Cases [6].  The remaining checkpoints on which you noted
>    non-conformance are discussed below.
> 
> 2. Checkpoint 9.1 ("Indicate if the specification is extensible.").
>    We believe the goals of this checkpoint [11] have been satisfied,
>    although we offer no simple yes/no answer or claims for the related
>    section 9 checkpoints. As you know, OWL is constructed using RDF
>    and XML, so it inherits many of their extensibility features.  For
>    instance, we demonstrate RDF extensibility by showing how OWL terms
>    can be seen as an extension of RDFS terms [7], and we explain how
>    XML Datatype extensibility affects OWL [8] [9].  At the same time,
>    OWL Lite and DL have strict limits on what they contain, as
>    detailed in the conformance limits [10].  Among these and related
>    parts of our specification we believe we have guided the markets
>    around OWL sufficiently well at this time.
> 
> 3. Checkpoint 13.2 ("Distinguish normative and informative text").
>    The Working Group feels that the style for making this distinction
>    is a matter of editorial discretion, best done with an
>    understanding of a particular document and its audience.  The
>    editors of S&AS have agreed to discuss this directly with you.
> 
> I hope you find these explanations and comments useful.  I would be
> happy to continue discussion of your specifications.  Meanwhile, Karl,
> please let me know (with a cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org) whether
> this reply is satisfactory in addressing your group concerns about our
> specifications.
> 
>     -- Sandro Hawke, W3C (Semantic Web Advanced Development)
>        writing on behalf of the Web Ontology Working Group
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0064
> and http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/04/QA-Rev-owl-semantics-all
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0002
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/#s1.1
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1
> [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2
> [10] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#docConformance
> [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#Gd-extensions
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 17:08:15 UTC