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

Re: rq24 ready for publication

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:32:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4512B08A.5030203@hp.com>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
CC: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:51:51PM +0100, Bijan Parsia muttered something about:
>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:39:02AM +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>>>>> In the editor's eyes, rq24 is ready to go out the door.
>>>>>> Is this that draft:
>>>>>> 	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html
>>>>>> And thus the one I should skim-review?
>>>>> Indeed. The issues have been whittled down to 2, summary statement
>>>>> removed. Keep in mind that this is for a heartbeat publication
> That's incorrect; it's not the consensus the WG reached at that meeting, which
> was to pub in 2 weeks as a Working Draft. None of us was sure whether that
> automatically knocked us out of CR, but we knew that risk when we agreed to
> pub a new WD. And, frankly, it's not like we have a choice; rq24 could not
> be pub'd as anything but a WD, IMO.
> In fact, the editors asked for additional weeks precisely in order to make
> substantive changes to the doc, instead of pub'ing a heartbeat pub *immediately*,
> which was the other possibility that was proposed.

I applied the editorial changes from LeeF and SimonR and decisions from 
subsequent telecons.

> And, FWIW, there are more than two open issues on the issues list, so
> it's not clear why only two of them are highlighted in the rq24
> proposed SOTD. Why those and not the others? Why not all of them?

As far as I can see, the ones removed were the ones we had made decisions on 
in the last two telecons.  I CVS-logged mine - Eric can confirm his.  The 
original list in the doc were, IIRC, the ones we were asking for feedback on.

We link to the issues which seems most helpful as it's live.  Will you have 
time to update the issues page in time for publication?  [[I can do the CVS 
commit if you're still having CVS problems - I'll put your name in the log 
message :-)]]

>>> The minutes of 5th Septmember [*] record the decision of the WG:
>>> """
>>> <kendallclark> PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 on or shortly after 19  
>>> September,
>>> after a sanity-check review by BijanP, and after SOTD updates by  
>>> EricP.
>>> """
> Andy, what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this relevant to the discussion?
> Kendall

There were statements about what the decision was so I dug out the wording 
on-record.  It does not say "Working Draft" - that seems to be a cause of 

Earlier proposals did say WD in the telecon; there was discussion with 
pros-and-cons of not being in CR.  The wording the WG made a decision on did 
not; that might have affected some people's decision.

That seems to leave it as, what?, chair's decision?  Whoever goes in the SOTD?

We didn't get to that part of the agenda this week but no big deal. 
Personally, I don't think it will wildly affect the length of time we take - 
it might add a short round to get both a LC and a CR in (if both are required, 
and I don't know what any minimums are.  Don't have a link to the process 
document in my FireFox bookmarks).  But in what time it takes, we would be 
working on drafting the implementations report and test suite deliverables.

Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 15:32:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC