Re: Agenda request: Test LC vote

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 03:40, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Guus, Jim
> I am hoping that we will be able to move to a Last Call vote on Test tomorrow.
> I will provide an updated version later today including changes from the 
> review comments.
> I believe that before the vote we should consider the following:
> 1) approving more tests that Ian can now execute
> I will send a formal proposal message
> 2) a double-check that what I have written about datatypes is what we want
> I will send a summary after I have explicit text to vote on.

2.5) let's take out the "complete OWL DL consistency checker"
conformance clause.

More formally, for tomorrow's agenda:

On the basis of the new information from this review comment

  Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:18:27 +0100 
  Subject: OWL Comment: have long CR period for OWL, or move owl:oneOf, owl:haveValue to OWL Full

I propose to reconsider our decision of 10 January:

 RESOLVED: that the OWL test document shall specify conformance of
 consistency checkers {Lite, DL, Full} x {Incomplete, Complete}.

I think maybe that record is buggy; we knew in January
that we weren't shooting for a "complete full consistency checker"

But more to the point: it's not clear to me that there's
a market for a "complete OWL DL consistency checker" either.
And the main reason for a conformance clause/sticker is
to catalyze a market segment.

So let's take it out of the test spec before we go to last call.

> 3) a quick run through of the most significant changes from this week review 
> (and most significant review comments that I did not accept)
> If (2) or (3) fails we may need to not have the vote; or they may result in 
> minor editorial actions prior to publication. (1) would result in an 
> editorial action prior to publication.
> Jeremy
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:17:00 UTC