W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Resolving LC comments (was: pfps-16, proposed resolution)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:16:02 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 11:08 02/04/2003 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:


>This strikes at the heart of one of the problems I am having with this 
>process... I find that focusing on issues in isolation from the wider 
>context of the document to which they refer is not helpful, as I find it 
>difficult to deal with issues in isolation without considering their 
>relationship to each other and to the document as a whole.
>Consequently, I am trying to work through the outstanding issues and deal 
>with them as I understand them in the context of the document, and present 
>proposals in terms of references to proposed document revisions.  My hope 
>is that WG members (and, subsequently, commenters) can read the revised 
>document sections (URIs provided with the proposed resolution) and agree 
>or disagree with the text provided, thereby focusing attention on the end 
>rather than the means.

I see a lot of merit in this approach.  I'm concerned that we get the 
issues resolved and can move on.  Discussing resolutions to the issues in 
terms of specific document changes works for me.  I've seen responses from 
Peter and Danc to comment dispositions which I recall as "I want to see the 
specific wording before I accept this".  Having the wording to point to is 

I would like to be able to point to the wording in the archive, 
however.  Please could we mail a copy of the doc to the archive and refer 
to it there, if you can't get it into the cvs.

>>You seem to have forgotten that we have stopped doing new work except in
>>response to issues raised.
>When we went to last call, I thought it was with a clear understanding 
>that there remained a number of document presentation issues that needed 
>to be fixed.  I seem to remember discussion that the agreement to go to 
>last call meant that we believed that the normative technical material was 
>substantially correct, not that the documents were without need for 
>further refinement.  If I had understood then that the last-call was to be 
>a straitjacket to prevent the kind of refinement that (to me) was clearly 
>still desirable, then I would have opposed doing so.

We are into judgement call territory here.

We clearly have scope to make editorial clarifications.  But I urge the 
editors to use that scope sparingly.  Changes will be subject to further 
review which takes time an energy from all of us.  In  general lets resist 
the temptation to polish; a dull brass rec is worth more to me than a shiny 
draft stuck in last call.


>>I am at a lost to see why the section title changed, why a new paragraph on
>>Clark Kent appeared, etc. etc.

I suggest Graham was testing the water with these.

>The new paragraphs were additional elements in response to issues 
>macgregor-01, macgregor-02.  Maybe they're unnecessary, but I was trying 
>to respond to the spirit of the issues raised as well as the letter of the 
>issue resolution.  If the group so agrees, they can easily be removed.

Personally, I'd rather they were not added.  MacGregor is happy is issue is 
resolved without them, and I fear they may just draw further fire.  I think 
its better not to mention them at all.

>As for the section title changes, I viewed these were editorial 
>refinements that reflected the change of emphasis of the section contents.

Judgement call: editorial yes - but is it really necessary?

>>Possibly I am seeing the result of many proposed issue resolutions all at
>>once. However, I am nervous that you appear to have taken out one sentence
>>that might have been objectectional and added five or six that might be!
>Well, I took out one sentence that *was* objected to.  And rearranged some 
>other material.  Apart from that explicitly highlighted in my commentary 
>accompanying the proposal, I don't believe I added any new *content*.
>>For instance, the change in the section title breaks W3C guidelines on case,
>>and so one of the reviewers who was fairly positive would be less so now.
>Oh, grumble.  That change may have been wrong to make, but the 
>capitalization of section headings is something that grates quite severely 
>on me.  (And FWIW my wife, who is a professional technical sub-editor, 
>agrees.)  I didn't realize there were W3C rules governing such trivial 
>things;  it was never an issue when I did the CC/PP document.  If it's 
>important, that can be put back, though I find it hard to see it being 
>somehow critical to the document's technical acceptability.

Right it not, but its not hard to change to be consistent.

>So here's my view of where we are:
>The reduction of comments to specific issues is certainly useful as 
>guidance and a checklist for the resolution of comments, but I fear the 
>tail may be wagging the dog here.  We've already had some reviewer 
>pushback on proposals that narrowly addressed the distilled issue rather 
>than the original comment.
>I note that the ultimate deliverables here are the documents, not the list 
>of issue resolutions.
>I also wonder that we seem to be trying to avoid a second last call at all 
>costs.  I submit that it might conceivably be quicker to bite the bullet 
>and accept a second last call than to agonize over every change in case it 
>makes a last call necessary.  (I'm not arguing that we should plan for 
>this, just raising the idea.)

You were not around when I said I didn't want us making bad decisions just 
to avoid a second last call.  That said, I don't want to do a second last 
call, so I wouldn't want to have to done one as a result of polishing.

My suggestion for process here is that we make the necessary changes, 
emphasis on *necessary* and then we'll look at the docs and decide whether 
to ask for advancement or do a second last call.

>I am becoming concerned that I may be out of step with the expectations of 
>the working group here.  Rather than plough ahead, I shall suspend my work 
>on this and turn my attention to the semantics document review that has 
>been requested of me, in the hope that the consensus way forward may 
>become clearer.

There may be some differences of view on the scale of editorial changes 
that are desirable - I urge you to keep them minimal, but that doesn't rule 
them out.  But I don't see anything else that does work in the context of 
the way the wg are doing things.

I am pleased to see such a clear proposal for disposing of pfps-16.  I'm 
hoping for a few more this week :)

I'll make comments on the specific text in another doc.

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 09:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC