W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ACTION-430, Move specialization sections to appendices

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:57:06 -0400
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24309.1207018626@cs.sunysb.edu>



Just to bring some clarity. I know that there was a long discussion.  I
just was not aware that this was a resolution. In the heat of a discussion
I often have no time to look at the IRC, especially at the F2Fes.

The current new place of the FLD->BLD section was actually suggested in a
parallel discussion with Jos. I took the action to mean that I should
address the flow of presentation concern in a satisfactory way. I recall
saying that I'll do something equivalent to what was proposed. If I
realized that this action was backed by a resolution then I would have
insisted on changing the wording.

I also remember asking not to hang actions of editorial nature on me but
rather record them as input because I had three long lists of comments, from
Jos, Stella, and Leora, which I did not have time to read and which might
have contained conflicting suggestions or better ideas.

Anyway, I did not mean to raise a controversy. I just think we should look
at the new version of the document and discuss it. We really did not have
much chance to discuss the role of FLD either.


	--michael  


> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > At the last telecon I  was tasked to explain why ACTION-430,
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/430
> > should be scrapped and the following resolution reconsidered:
> > 
> >     RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and specializatio
> n normative.
> > 
> > 
> > 1. I was surprised to actually see this as a resolution. (I missed it when
> >    reading the minutes).
> >    There was no vote on this proposal -- only a discussion. During the
> >    discussion I only said that I'll think how to best address CSMAs
> >    concerns.
> 
> Michael,
> 
> You were there during the meeting, and there was a discussion and of course 
> there was a vote.  Since the vote was unanimous, we didn't record anything other 
> than the resolution.  As you can see from the IRC log below, the discussion was 
> about 10 minutes.  My recollection is that the wording of the proposed 
> resolution was changed during the discussion because *you* wanted to be sure the 
> section was normative.  Furthermore, I would not have given you an action unless 
> you agreed to it.
> 
> The discussion began from a comment from Jos that the document defined BLD in 
> two ways, and it was confusing.  DaveR also pointed that out in his review, 
> though his original suggestion was to make it the other way around.
> 
> 11:12:49 [GaryHallmark]
>      topic: BLD reviews
> 11:14:27 [GaryHallmark]
>      josb: need single defn of
> 11:14:33 [GaryHallmark]
>      ... BLD
> 11:15:44 [GaryHallmark]
>      csma: specialization of BLD from FLD should be appendix
> 11:16:29 [GaryHallmark]
>      mkifer: direct (standalone) spec should be normative
> 11:17:01 [GaryHallmark]
>      sandro: both can be normative
> 11:17:07 [ChrisW]
>      proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices
> 11:17:32 [ChrisW]
>      proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, with 
> both normative
> 11:19:43 [ChrisW]
>      proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
> leaving standalone sections in place, and making both normative
> 11:21:06 [josb]
>      proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
> leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and 
> specialization normative
> 11:21:35 [sandro]
>      Axel: example -- many people use RDF non-normative rule-based semantics.
> 11:21:37 [ChrisW]
>      resolved: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
> leaving standalone sections in place, and making both normative
> 11:21:49 [ChrisW]
>      correction ---
> 11:21:51 [josb]
>      RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
> leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and 
> specialization normative
> 11:22:10 [sandro]
>      csma: And that shows why they should both me normative, so if there is an 
> error, it's the spec that is in error, not those folks and their implementation.
> 11:22:17 [ChrisW]
>      action: mkifer to move specialization sections to appendices
> 11:22:17 [trackbot-ng]
>      Created ACTION-430 - Move specialization sections to appendices [on Michael 
> Kifer - due 2008-02-28].
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 02:57:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT