- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:50:20 -0500
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Semantic Web Coorination Group <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 14:23, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote: > thanks to you and guus also for all of the work. Likewise! > i have a couple of questions about the documents: > - what happens to the webont owl documents? will they be evolved by > w3c at all? Possibly; in the W3C process, you are here: "7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation" http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#rec-modify > for example, there was some formatting issue with columns in a > number of the documents and i am not sure if that got resolved. As an > editor/author, i had said that it was fine for a w3c person or another > person to make any useful formatting updates but i am not sure that > that ever happened. I got as far as flagging your message for follow-up, I think. There is a process for fixing bugs of that sort, but I have never done it. I'm not sure what priority I can afford to give this task. > - at the daml pi meeting, the program manager - mark greaves - > mentioned that he anticipated an owl 2.0. Hmm... interesting; I have heard very little call for new versions of OWL. > with webont coming to an official end, is there a mechanism for an > evolution to happen? Yes; it's basically the same mechanism that got the OWL work started in the first place: The Director proposes new work (in an Activity Proposal); the Advisory Committee reviews it, and The Director decides based on the review feedback. Points 1 and 2 in this summary are pretty good http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/intro.html#Intro -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 15:50:47 UTC