- From: Charles White <Charles.White@networkinference.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:49:22 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I also agree with the comments below about the "consistency sticker". I see no reason why (or how) WOWG would get into the consistency testing arena. chas > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > Sent: 14 May 2003 16:15 > To: Jeremy Carroll > Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: 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 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/200 3May/0046.html 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}. -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf5.html#Test I think maybe that record is buggy; we knew in January that we weren't shooting for a "complete full consistency checker" sticker. 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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 09:50:45 UTC