W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: toward last call for SPARQL QL

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:55:41 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050608185541.GG2038@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:34:52AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Every comment should come with suggested replacement text.

I agree that this is ideal, but I don't agree that it's a requirement.

> The editors are not obliged to do anything about
> comments that don't include suggested replacement text nor a
> test case (sketch).

I don't agree with this. All (or nearly all) of my review comments will come
with suggested text, but I don't agree with this as an absolute prohibition
on comments w/out suggested text.

I don't intend to be disputatious, but the chair encouraged these remarks
for the record, so there you go.

> Anything you know
> about when you'll send your comments or what angle(s)
> you intend to focus on is handy for me and the
> editors to know, I'm sure. If you're comfortable
> sending it to the WG, that's great too.

My review, with comments, will be completed some time tomorrow, probably
fairly early my time. I'm not focusing on any particular area, but since
I've completed through 6.1, most of them have to do with infelicities of
expression, some grammatical errors, and pointing out some bits that just
don't ready very clearly.

I don't know whether they are suggestions, requests, or critical issues. I'd
like to hope that the editors find them helpful.

> we can also tidy
> it up editorially -- add a glossary or an index of formal
> definitions, polish the wording, tweak the stylesheets, that sort
> of thing.

I'd prefer that, as a matter of policy, we not defer "word polishing" to
after we've entered LC. The spec *just is* the words that constitute it. The
design we all have in our heads is irrelevant! But them I'm an editor, so I
would say that.

> What's *not* OK to say something like "well, we know that part of
> the design is broken, but we'll fix it during last call." 

Does that go for part of the spec too?

Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 18:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC