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 15:44:57 +0100
Message-Id: <19030AF1-733B-4141-A816-8DA77214C7D3@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 4 Aug 2009, at 15:31, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>>> [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..."
>> 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.
> There may be something in that direction,

I think it's more:

"""Reviewers should not send substantive technical reviews late on  
the Recommendation track. Reviewers should not expect that a Working  
Group will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. The  
more evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less  
weight substantive comments will carry when provided late on the  
Recommendation Track. Worthy ideas should be recorded even when not  
incorporated into a mature document."""

Basically, later comments lack some punch, but still may be made and  
still must be addressed. And we can easily address them! And in a  
positive way, for the most part (i.e., direct semantics does what he  
wants, deprecation *is* a bit weird but yes the Primer can handle it,  
he's just a bit confused about Profiles but easily straightened out  
-- though I think more discussion of OWL QL might be helpful, and we  
(and rif) have provided more support for builtins than ever has  
existed before and provided a path forward for real support of them).

It's mostly clarification. It's also a bit of setting for next  
version (e.g., for builtins! I *like* having expressed support for  
that :)).

> but it certainly does not
> entitle us to ignore comments on the design:
>      Starting with a Last Call review up to the transition to Proposed
>      Recommendation, a Working Group MUST formally address any
>      substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do
>      so in a timely manner.
>             -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html

Plus, AC members can still lodge objections with a lot of weight at  
PR transition time.

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:40:34 UTC

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