From: Tim Berners-Lee (timbl@w3.org)
Date: 11/14/01
Peter, I am sorry that the DAML+OIL document has been caught in all this - specifically that the world seems to be changing around it. The fact is, the world *is* changing -- 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 through, a sort of resolution of a long-standing tension between academic and commercial 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 serious problem. 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. Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> To: <joint-committee@daml.org> 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 submitting > 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 been > made in response to errors that I found, but others remain) > > peter > > PS: The new state of the submission will be available under > > http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/daml/ > > shortly after 11am EST today. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST