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

Re: toward last call for SPARQL QL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:15:20 -0500
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1118258120.12287.322.camel@localhost>

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 14:55 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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.

I'm happy to agree on the ideal.

This isn't the sort of rule that will be relevant if
push comes to shove.

> > 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?


Hmm... how to be more clear about the cost of change of editorial
vs substantive changes... maybe better not to try. Yes,
the spec just is the words that constitute it.

If you see a problem, report it. If you can contribute a fix, so
much the better. If somebody else reports a problem and you can
contribute a fix for that, please do.

Try not to assume that the editor will find a fix when
nobody else has found one. If it's broke, it's broke, and we're
all obliged to fix it.

> Kendall Clark
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 19:15:24 UTC

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