LC3 Responses/MM1

To: markm@kyield.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Mark Montgomery

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0038.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Unfortunately we don't have the resources within the Working Group to produce the kind of material you describe. Hopefully this gap will be filled by third parties such as Kyield.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group

CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL

Just wanted to drop in, say hello, and thanks for continuing to push OWL 
forward. Have just reviewed the wiki and reflecting back more than a dozen 
years to when many of us were struggling with basic tags in order to imbed 
some intelligence into the web, often frustrated spending far more time on 
compatibility issues, which was taking value from me personally while 
preventing the delivery of higher value to others.

The only comment I would make is on communications. The wiki format is a 
good one, but still not they type of communications format found or 
understood in the fickle executive suite. Back when I was fully engaged in 
venture capital while moving Kyield forward, the two worlds and cultures (CS 
and finance) so radically different that I actually divided the days, 
finding that if I attempted to work on both the same day, both would suffer.

While I suppose one could argue that it's the job of vendors and end users 
to communicate internally and externally, I'm still not wondering if a white 
paper format restricted to standards wouldn't be helpful in explaining to 
business morons why this work is so relevant. We've attempted to tone down 
the sales effort in our small contribution to that effort and have been very 
pleasantly surprised (shocked is a better word), particularly with the 
Unleash the innovation within piece.

Beyond that I will attempt to digest the possibilities for adoption from my 
perch.