W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Action Item: proposal for posting resolved issues

From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:26:57 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010531112657.A21796@w3.org>
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> Art Barstow wrote:
> > I am also willing to take ownership of the document 
> 
> Thanks for volunteering Art.  The only observation I have here is that if
> we are going to update two docs in sync, i.e the issues list and the
> resolved issues doc proposed, then it might be easier if both were done
> by one person.

I think the sync problem could be a little more complicated because 
the resolution of some issues will result in changes to the errata 
document and other resolutions will result in changes to the 
resolved issues doc.  Depending on what is considered acceptable
for an errata (e.g. test cases?), both the errata and the resolved
issues doc could be updated.

For example, the ns-prefix-resolution could be handled this way:

o the issue's Currently field [in the open issues doc] is changed 
 to something like "closed - see errata and resolution" and links
 to the item in the errata and closed issues doc are included

o the issue is added to the errata; the errata contains a link
 to the open issue doc and a link to the resolved issues doc 

o the issue is added to the closed issues doc; this issue will
 include pointers to the test cases and pointers to the discussion
 in the w3c-rdfcore-wg archive.

Hmmm.  Would this be going overboard?
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 11:28:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:55 EDT