W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > October 2008

Fwd: SKOS Comment (various) [ISSUE-177]

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:57:22 +0000
Message-Id: <7F04E3A8-C1D3-4452-877C-FBFD6C1529F3@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>



The following was sent to Jeremy but not cced to the WG. I'm  
resending so that the tracker will pick it up.

	Sean
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
> Date: 17 October 2008 17:01:24 BDT
> To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
> Subject: Re: SKOS Comment (various) [ISSUE-177]
>
>
>
> Dear Jeremy
>
> Thank you for your comments [1,ISSUE-177]:
>
> 1) labeling normative material (editorial - suggest no or little
> change)
>
> I assume this issue has been considered before, however I think I
> like it how it is.
> My immediate reaction on seeing an LC Rec track doc that does not
> clearly label either normative material or informative material or
> both, is to request such labeling, since it is usually a good
> practice.
> Once I had finished the ToC I had determined that this would be one
> of my comments.
> However, by the time I had finished 1.3 I was having second
> thoughts on this, and overall, I think the document gives subtle
> gradations of normativity to its various constraints and
> recommendations, which quite possibly actually works, and such
> subtly cannot be achieved with the hammer of "1. Introduction
> (Informative)". In general it is not a good practice to omit such
> labeling because it relies on having editors who can write well. I
> believe this to be the case in this instance.
>
> Perhaps the references should be split into normative references
> and informative ones ...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We are pleased to note your comments regarding the quality of the  
> overall writing of the document. We believe that the distinction  
> between normative and informative material is sufficient in the  
> document in its current form. We also note that no other comments  
> have been received on this point, and conclude that others in the  
> community do not see problems in the lack of "sledgehammmer"  
> labelling.
>
> As a result, we propose to *close* this issue with no change in  
> response to your comment. Is this acceptable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> 	Sean Bechhofer
> 	Alistair Miles
>
> [ISSUE-177] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/177
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/ 
> 0077.html
>
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
>
>
>

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 11:57:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 October 2008 11:57:54 GMT