W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: CR comments

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:32:24 +0100
Message-Id: <BFE1C068-AC02-41C9-B581-58033D262A57@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <sandro@w3.org>, <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On 4 Aug 2009, at 15:21, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: CR comments
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:09:52 -0500
>>> I have drafted responses to the comments from Gioele Barabucci[1]  
>>> and
>>> Jeff Heflin [2].
>>> Let me know if you are (un)happy with these responses.
>>> Ian
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC3_Responses/GB1
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC3_Responses/JH1
>> The tone of JH1 seems unnecessarily hostile.  Please at least drop  
>> the
>> paragraph beginning, "Comments during the CR phase..."
>>      -- Sandro
> Isn't there some W3C document that states that comments during CR are
> supposed to be about implementation, not design?  I seem to remember
> reading this, but now I can't find the document.

Since we have reasonable answers to everything, why bother making  
this point to Jeff?

Several of his points are somewhat editorial. Let's be grateful for  
the generally positive tone of his comment. If he wants to press  
something (i.e., he thinks it should go back to last call) that would  
be a different issue.

Lots of people make comments at inopportune times. I believe Sandro's  
point is that there's no point in possibly getting his back up on a  
procedural point we don't even need!

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:28:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC