W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:32:39 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021214112041.02d56dc8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 01:31 14/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How much of a 
>disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised snapshot by say 
>Monday EOW my time (evening your time)??

I'm out of the office from Monday lunchtime till Wed night at a 
conference.  I think I'll have wireless access there, but can't be 
certain.  Eric may be able to fill in I have problems.

Looks like Dan has identified some must fixes so an update is necessary.  I 
suggest you go ahead but resist the urge to polish that which doesn't 
really need it.  I'll put the current version in CVS and we can always 
examine the diffs, presuming there are not too many.

>All the changes will be link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing 
>earthshaking. I also plan to call out formal technical definitions, give 
>them all anchors and put in links from every term use to a glossary entry 
>or definition, throughout the text.

I agree that giving the technical definitions anchors is a good thing, but 
I'd rather have stability in the document right now.  There will be an 
update after last call - could that be done then?

We are now into change control.  My mental model is that the WG have to 
review the last call document.  We need to review that document, not 
something that is nearly that document.  I don't want to get to the last 
call decision and have folks say the doc's changed too much.

I recommend you stick to must fixes only.

Brian
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 06:31:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:54 EDT