W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

RE: review of json-ld-syntax

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:22:42 +0100
To: "'Andy Seaborne'" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01dd01ce1c3a$b10c7e70$13257b50$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> > On 08/03/13 18:19, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > Most of your feedback has been addressed. The rest needs to be
> further
> > discussed. I also posted a number of proposal to the issue on GitHub
> [1].
> > Feel free to comment there.
> 
> Last Call is a important step in the process where the technical works
> ends and community feedback is important. This is a working group
> review and we want to maximise WG member engagement.

Sure. But you take this a bit out of context. This was part of a mail were I
reported how two specific comments have been addressed. There was another
long mail I sent out last night explaining all the other changes I made and
a mail extracting the things that haven't been addressed yet and that need
to be further discussed.


> Please can we have issues on the working group tracker and discussions
> on the working group list.  WG members are expected to pay attention to
> the mailing list.

I'm fine with that. Even though I find W3C's issue tracker much less usable
than GitHub's.


> Sandro raised 17 MEDIUM or SERIOUS points that he considered worth
> noting.
> 
> On github (which you have to sign up for), all Sandro's points are all
> in a single issue.  One comment there is:
> 
> """
> Incorporate feedback from Sandro.
> This addresses #224.
> """
> No information as to what parts are addressed.
> The commit is 1 changed file with 81 additions and 117 deletions.

That information is in last night's mail: 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0044.html

All the parts that aren't in there are in the second mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0045.html

I thought this helps to make it easier to discuss the various points.
Apparently it didn't :-)

Not sure how we proceed from here... suggestions? Apart from using W3C's
issue tracker? How would you handle this? Create 17 separate issues?


Thanks for bringing this up. Better to sort these things out now rather than
later.


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 20:23:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT