Re: more grief on the submission

From: Tim Berners-Lee (
Date: 11/14/01


I am sorry that the DAML+OIL document has been caught in all this -
that the world seems to be changing around it.  The fact is, the world *is*
-- to the extent that we seem to be moving from a state in which IPR was
vague and
a bit of a minefield to a state in which there is an understanding that
standard technology
will be royalty-free.  This is a big change for the whole consortium to go
a sort of resolution of a long-standing tension between academic and
points of view.  After the change, the legal requirements should be very
clear, and
there should be an increasingly well-lubricated path to meet them.

Actually, I think it is quite important that we do make sure the legal bits
are straight
for DAML+OIL as it will end up (I hope!) being a basic foundation for a huge
amount of new work.  Fear and doubt around patents later on would be a

I can't address the problem with tools being broken, but I understand that
the web
team are aware of it.

I mainly wanted to say thanks for all the effort you are putting into it on
everyone's behalf.
It is valuable work -- though painful.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: more grief on the submission

> It seems that there were more problems with the submission.  The axiom
> document apparently didn't follow the guidelines.  This may be a problem
> because the axiom document was modified after the previous submission.
> (May be, but I don't think so.  I think that the previous version also had
> most of the rejected characteristics.)
> So several things:
> 1/ I've modified the document to try to satisfy these constraints.
> 2/ I will NOT accept any changes to the documents.  The only changes that
>    will be made from now on are minimal changes required to pass the W3C
>    criteria.
> 3/ I will submitted the document yet again this morning, as soon as I
>    got it past the automated checkers.  This version apparently passed one
>    set of checkes.
> On an organizational note, this has been an exceedingly frustrating
> experience.  I ask that our leader (which one, I'm not sure) make an
> official communication to W3C to the effect that the process for
> notes is broken and needs to be fixed.
> Here are some of the broken pieces:
> 1/ requirements documents out of date and inconsistent (known by W3C)
> 2/ legal requirements unspecified (and probably changing)
> 3/ checking software broken and hard to use (some changes have already
>    made in response to errors that I found, but others remain)
> peter
> PS:  The new state of the submission will be available under
>      shortly after 11am EST today.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST