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

Re: Semantics issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:20:38 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030127175634.02c81c40@localhost>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 11:32 27/01/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>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?

I'd like some input from those with previous experience about what works best.

I'm struggling from lack of experience, to figure out what principles 
should apply.  The advice I heard last week was that any comment that 
requires a change to the document gets reviewed by the WG.

Brian
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 13:19:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:24 EDT