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

Re: Last call comment process

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:34:39 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030128141704.0563ee58@localhost>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 14:09 28/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Brian
>
>would you please walk me through what I am meant to do.

I'm figuring this out as we go along.


>Dan has made a comment on my text, you have assigned a number to it:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-02
>and given it a name "goofy literals".

I'm wondering if I did that too quickly.  I'm planning to try to update the 
comment tracking doc once at the beginning and once at the end of each 
working day.  I could wait for the editors to request an id, but if I'd 
done that Peter might still be waiting, so I've been using my judgement, 
which may save the editors a small amount of work. This may mean I allocate 
an id to a comment that is soon withdrawn.  I regard that as my bad luck.


>I want to have a short discussion with Dan about this before the telecon on
>Friday when I take it we will discuss it.

Good plan.


>So I send a message to Dan and to www-rdf-comments

I'd suggest you just reply to the message I sent allocating the id.  That 
keeps the related messages together in the thread and you'll inherit the 
title of the thread - which now includes the comment id.


>The text of the message I wish to send is at the end of this message.
>
>What should the subject be "[danc-02] goofy literals"?

Having the reference in the subject is good.  See above.


>Let's suppose that Dan then replies, "I missed that, yes that's fine then."
>
>Do I then reply saying "OK we will formally close this issue.", with a 
>subject
>line of "[closed][danc-02] goofy literals"?

"[closed]" is good.  I'd call this withdrawing the comment rather than 
closing it in the text.

>On the other danc-01 issue I need to have a longer discussion with him to 
>make
>sure that we are on the same page, so I can correctly present his issue to
>the WG (Dan even if you will be there, I am trying to iron out the process,
>also for comments from non-WG members). I assume I can generalize from the
>answers to this message.

Same as above.  Reply in thread if possible.  The idea is to clarify the issue.
In general its good practice to reflect all raised issues back in the 
editor's own words to check understanding.


>Jeremy
>
>Proposed response (not for WG discussion - that comes later).
>****
>Hi Dan
>
>thanks for your comment on goofy literals.
>
>It has been assigned a URL
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-02

That bit is a bit redundant, given my previous response.


>Before the Working Group discusses this comment I wanted to check that you 
>had
>seen the line in that subsection:
>[[
>The lexical form is present in all RDF literals; the language identifier and
>the datatype URI may be absent from an RDF literal.
>]]
>and find that insufficient.
>
>I take it that the text you would prefer is:
>
>
>[[
>A literal in an RDF graph containing up to three components called:
>
>+ The lexical form being a Unicode [UNICODE] string in Normal Form C [NFC]
>(required).
>+ The language identifier as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase
>(optional).
>+ The datatype URI being an RDF URI reference (optional).
>
>A plain literal is one in which the datatype URI is absent.
>
>A typed literal is one in which the datatype URI is present.
>]]
>
>Have I understood correctly, or could we just leave it as it is?

Looks excellent.  If Dan remains dissatisfied with the status quo, then you 
can bring proposed text to the WG Friday.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 09:33:26 EST

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