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

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-01-31

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:56:54 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131124558.09b72dd0@localhost>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 07:54 31/01/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:

[...]


>Like Jeremy, I too am hoping for greater clarity.  For example, what does 
>"editorial corrections" cover?  In the case of the comments delayed to 
>last call, we have categorized them as "editorial" (including PPS's 
>comments), but they may involve rewriting and/or adding material.  I've no 
>problem handling them as editorial, but I don't want to be bypassing the 
>WG if it wants some say on whether/how these are handled.  Certainly if it 
>comes to a (potential or actual) disagreement between, say, Peter and I on 
>handling something, I would raise it as an issue, but I'm less clear about 
>other things.


I think that puts the question nicely Frank.


I am assuming an editor can ask the WG to consider any comment raised, so 
the editor can push anything on to the WG.

The question in my mind is, how much does the WG wish to be involved and 
how much would it prefer the editors to just handle on their own.  The 
point of the discussion in todays telecon is to ask the WG this 
question.  I think possible answers include:

   o the WG reviews all changes
   o editors have freedom to fix trivial changes (typos, links, formatting, 
grammar), but the WG would like to review all other changes
   o the WG would like to review all comments, but may decide the issue is 
editorial and then leave it to the editor to fix
   o the WG would like to leave it entirely to the editors judgement of 
when to consult the WG.

Brian
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 07:55:48 EST

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