- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:32:27 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian-- Just to clarify, I believe you've also said that it's only comments that are "not easy" and get "escalated" by the editors that require explicit WG consideration, right? I'd actually appreciate some further clarification about that. The only "easy" cases you explicit mention are those where we can say, in effect, "we already do that". If an editor gets a comment and thinks that can be dealt with by a simple wording change (maybe we "already say that", but the commenter doesn't think it's clear enough, or something), is that one that can also be dealt with directly (the editor directly responds "I propose to deal with that this way, is that OK?", and only if there's dispute does that get escalated), or should the editor request a commend id for those immediately? Sorry to add to the overhead (if that's what I'm doing). --Frank Brian McBride wrote: > > At 11:35 26/01/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > > [...] > > >Which, looking forward, leads me to suggest that if Pat/Jeremy can agree > >on an alternative treatment that gives clearer exposition of the intended > >meaning, they should be allowed discretion to do so. > > We are now in last call. We need to have a more formal process for dealing > with changes from now on. I believe there are last call comments around > this issue. The WG must consider and agree a disposition of each > comment. Let's hope there are not too many for us to cope with. > > Brian -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 11:36:29 UTC