W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: rq25 review

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:39:45 -0500
Message-Id: <E8BEA87A-5661-48B9-A5C9-3B5A06D63E8A@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>

On Feb 26, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

>> I'm all for flouting convention and throwing over best practices, but
>> surely you need *good* reasons
>> to do so? What are our good reasons?
> I believe that this practice in the query language specification dates
> back to recommendations from DanC. The reasoning is summarized here:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/ 
> 0102.html

I still don't agree with that. Which I suppose is merely a "for the  
record" point to make here, but there you go.

> I don't believe that we need to specifically call out that we are not
> invoking RFC 2119; there are plenty of other RFCs which we are also  
> not
> using.

The reason to do it is to help the reader understand that this is  
*not* a spec where spec-loaded words are used with their specifying  
meaning. Sure, there are lots of other RFCs; but none of them will be  
assumed by some readers to be relevant here.

> Thanks for the detailed review, Kendall. I believe that most of the  
> other
> comments are editorial,

My message still doesn't seem to have been accepted by the mailing  
list, so I'll take this chance to say that I highlighted the points  
that I thought were not editorial; most crucially, the confusion  
between the status of the various parts of the document, whether  
normative or not, is problematic.

> case. 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. There are several points where I simply  
cannot tell what rq25 means; I don't have a test case or replacement  
text. I still expect an editorial response. Confusion on the part of  
a motivated reader is useful editorial feedback; it's not *maximally*  
useful, but such is life.

As to bits of feedback that can be silently ignored, if the editors  
are unclear about whether any bits of my review are of that nature,  
I'd appreciate them asking rather than assuming. I don't believe my  
feedback contained any such bits, but since it's not been distributed  
to the WG yet, it's hard to say for sure.

Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 16:40:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC