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

Re: Formal Objections: [was Re: regrets for 2003-01-17]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:46:50 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <3E28175A.4010103@w3.org>

Brian McBride wrote:

[...]

> At this time, I don't believe the co-chairs have received any formal 
> objections. 

I believe the decision to close the datatypes issue was made with
outstanding dissent. I would expect any WG decisions made without
consensus to be carried forward as formal objections.

Hmm... the issues list doesn't help finding the objections...
"Currently: for discussion"
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes

Hmm... no objections recorded in the 6Sep decision...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0081.html

Ah; there it is...
"Against:

  Mike Dean
  Nokia"
-- Minutes: telecon 11th October 2002

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html



I believe Mike Dean's objection was based on the impact
of the datatype syntax on "data documents"; I recall hearing
it in telcons, and I suspect it's in the email archive, though
it doesn't stand out after a quick browse. Perhaps he'd
like to nominate a particularly relevant message to serve
as the justification for his position, or restate his position.

Likewise, I'm sure Patrick stated his objections on
behalf of Nokia, and I believe they're part of the WG
proceedings, though I'm not sure which part could
serve as a succinct statment of his position; perhaps
he'd like to nominate or write something.

Meanwhile, I don't think the burden is 100% on them
at this point; they have made technical arguments
to the WG, and if our record is incomplete or
hard to navigate, the chairs/team contacts share
responsibility (with the WG) for completing it before asking for
Candidate/Proposed Rec.

Aaron, I recall various gripes/venting, but no actual
dissent from you to questions put to the WG. I don't suppose
that completely prevents you from lodging a formal
objection at this time, but I don't see how you can
do that without contradicting the position you took
when the question was put to the WG. i.e. if
you abstained, that's a signal to the WG that
you can live with whatever decision the rest
of the group came to. Even if your abstain by
not attending; there's always a week to review
the record and add your objection, and I don't
recall your taking that opportunity. Or... hmm...
for IURIS, perhaps you did?


> An alternative is to include something less formal in the announcement 
> of last call.  Something, perhaps along the lines of:
>
> The working group particularly seeks feedback on:
>
>   o RDF's use of fragment identifiers
>   o the introduction of internationalized URI's
>   o the datatyping support proposed
>   o whether to change the URIREF's for the RDF and RDFS namespaces 

That seems like a good idea, though I haven't thought carefully about the
editorial/schedule impact.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 09:47:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:22 EDT