W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: issue number requested: was: Re: the meaning of RDF tokens

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:12:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030217.111237.127778950.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Subject: issue number requested: was: Re: the meaning of RDF tokens
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:04:30 -0500

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
> > Subject: Re: the meaning of RDF tokens
> > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:10:33 -0500
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > 
> >>>Only one last-call comment identifier is needed here, I think.  However, I
> >>>do not see any in the last-call comment list at
> >>>	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues
> >>>
> >>You won't see it there.  There are two sets of change identifiers.  The 
> >>ones listed at the URL you've cited are issues that have been referred 
> >>by the Editors of the relevant documents to the WG for decision.  In 
> >>addition, each Editor is maintaining an internal set of change 
> >>identifiers for those changes they have accepted (as I have this one) 
> >>and are going to go ahead and fix.
> >>
> >>--Frank
> >>
> > 
> > You mean without input from the rest of the working group, or even
> > elevating it to an official comment?
> > 
> > I am distinctly unhappy with this way of dealing with my comments.
> > 
> Peter--
> Your original comment was addressed to the Primer, and I've been dealing 
> with it on that basis.  That didn't make it any less "official", it just 
> meant I could decide myself whether I thought I could make the changes 
> necessary to the Primer to deal with it.  I'll be happy to raise it as a 
> general issue to be addressed in all the documents if you like (and in 
> fact will do so now).

Well, my initial comment indeed used wording from the Primer.  However, it
asked a general question about the meaning of RDF tokens.  This question is
not related to only the Primer but also to the RDF specification as a whole.

> Brian, can we have an issue number for this please?
> Keep in mind though that:  (a) it's going to be difficult to determine 
> what has to be done to address your concerns to your satisfaction if we 
> don't have pointers to specific places in the various documents that 
> need changing, and (b) any guidance I get from the WG for changes 
> specifically to the Primer is going to be pretty general, and involve 
> mostly my exercising editorial discretion, so it's pretty much going to 
> boil down to the same thing in the end (at least as far as the Primer is 
> concerned).

Well I hope that at least the WG as a whole makes some sort of decision on
the various outstanding comments concerning the meaning of RDF.  Once this
is done the editors can attempt to make their documents reflect this
decision.  However, without some sort of resolution of the issue, what can
an editor do?

> --Frank

Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 11:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC