W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:06:35 -0600
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1139861195.12577.641.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 20:10 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2006, at 15:22, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >> That text (in the definition) was something that the WG made a  
> >> decision about.
> >>   I don't think I have license to make changes without further a  
> >> WG decision
> >> (and you weren't there on Tuesday).
> >>
> >> Dan - can I apply the changes?
> >> Or apply them for WG review?
> >
> > It's been very difficult to get all the interested parties on this
> > issue in sync. I'm not inclined to re-consider our 26 Jan decision
> > without a really compelling argument that it's broken.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/ 
> > att-0298/26-dawg-minutes.html#item04
> >
> > If this is only an editorial problem, it can get fixed during CR.
> >
> > A test case showing it's a substantive problem would be a compelling
> > argument to re-consider the decision.
> >
> > Andy, I'd rather you did _not_ change the decisions that we
> > agreed on 26 Jan.
> >
> > Enrico, I hope you find this acceptable.
> 
> Not really.
> These are editorial problems, that make the current definition
> 
> (a) slightly imprecise from the formal point of view:
> 
> >>>> 1) missing explicit quantification (some term has not been properly
> >>>> introduced before being mentioned: B and BGP')
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) the notion of "introduced by" should be replaced by the more
> >>>> precise "in the range of"
> 
> (b) not fully understandable:
> 
> >>>> 3) we need to emphasise that G' and B are somehow fixed - so that
> >>>> we can ignore mentioning them from now on (as we actually do
> >>>> whenever we mention matching in the rest of the document).
> 
> I don't see why we want to go public with an imprecise document,  
> while we have spotted the imprecision in advance.
> Why should we be so rigid for an editorial problem?

Because I need to be sure that the text is agreed by the WG.

I am not certain that the change you're suggesting is not substantively
different from what the WG decided on 26 Jan.

If you can get 2 or 3 WG members (e.g. Bijan/Kendall/UMD and Pat H)
to look closely and positively confirm that it's only an editorial
change, then I'll revise my advice to the editor.

Perhaps we can do this quickly in tomorrow's teleconference.
But I'm not inclined to give it more than 5 minutes, and if
it doesn't work out, I want to leave our 26 Jan decision in tact.



> cheers
> --e.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 20:06:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT