W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: references and acknowledgements . (trumpet blowing)

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:15 -0400
Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9712D8BE-E7AD-48FC-989B-8FD4CBDDAE92@3roundstones.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc1729@gmail.com>
Hi Jeremy,

This problem has been fixed in the latest editors draft [1].  You, Graham and Brian were also separately called out in the acknowledgements.

Thanks for your patience as I wrestled with ReSpec with the substantial help of Markus.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html



On Sep 11, 2013, at 08:37, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> The lack of acknowledgements in the currently published Concepts is a ReSpec issue and does not reflect any intention of the WG.  We will sort it.  Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 16:16, Jeremy Carroll <jjc1729@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This is a comment on the current last call documents (concepts and semantics)
>> 
>> I note that there is no mention of Brian McBride's role in the previous round of specifications 
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/
>> "The WG decided that bwm will be "series editor" for the WG documents."
>> 
>> - obviously Brian is no longer fulfilling this role, but it is conventional to maintain some reference to former editors in the acknowledgements or somewhere.
>> 
>> I also note that Graham and I are not called out as former editors in the Concepts acknowledgements, in particular, the sentence: "The RDF 2004 editors acknowledge " fails to mention who those editors were!
>> 
>> I am also slightly disappointed that there is no informative reference to Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust by Carroll, Bizer, Hayes & Stickler; with this I realize that the bar is much higher than with acknowledgements to former editors so my disappointment is lower!
>> 
>> Overall though I believe the documents may benefit from a review of the acknowledgements section by some member of the WG.
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> 
> 




Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 17:04:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 October 2013 17:04:43 UTC