Re: SEM: OWL Full semantics

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 14:19, pat hayes wrote:
> >On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 13:37, pat hayes wrote:
> >>  >Pat, in your message
> >>  >
> >>  >you wrote very sensible comments which I fully support.
> >>  >If I may suggest, put on your OWL S&AS editor's hat and
> >>  >put it those changes !-)
> >>
> >>  AS&S is a multi-document, and each part of it has a different editor
> >>  list.
> >
> >FYI... meanwhile, it's one W3C tech report, with one list
> >of editors in the TR page:
> >
> >
> >OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
> >         31 March 2003, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, Ian
> >         Horrocks
> >         Last Call Ends 9 May 2003
> >
> >With my W3C process hat on, the different editor lists for
> >different parts are just fancy-looking acknowledgements,
> >not relevant to the constraint that
> >"Every technical report on the Recommendation track is edited by one or
> >more editors appointed by a Working Group Chair."
> >  --
> >
> Ah, in that case I was under a different impression. I had thought 
> that the ability to track these editorial delicacies was the primary 
> purpose of having this rather odd format in a normative document.
> Clearly I have not handled this properly, I apologize.

No need for that; these things only become clear in
hindsight. I think we're all figuring out how best to
do this stuff...

> Under the circumstances, if your interpretation of the TR page is 
> official W3C policy then it might be better to remove my name as an 
> editor on the TR page.

Ah. Hmm...

>  I believe it is there only as a courtesy in 
> any case,

I was under the impression the chairs had discussed this
"appointment" with you in substance.

Not a big deal... the list of editors can be updated any
time we update the document.

>  and the document could still acknowledge my contributions 
> to the relevant sections. I did almost none of the actual editorial 
> work on this document as it stands, and I think I would prefer to 
> feel free to criticize it than to have my name on it.  I do not 
> particularly like the way that the semantics is presented here. In 
> particular, the abstract syntax seems to me to introduce a large 
> clutter of misleading and unnecessary terminology, and if I had 
> written an OWL semantics this would have been relegated to an 
> appendix. So maybe I will :-)
> Pat
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 15:39:31 UTC