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

Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:17:39 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324170913.03166cd0@localhost>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: fmanola@mitre.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 09:25 21/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]


>I believe that this discussion points out a problem with the RDF Core WG
>issue resolution process.  The RDF Core WG has chosen in several cases to
>divide a single comments concerning some aspect of the new RDF specification
>or document*s* into several issues, for example one per possibly-affected 
>document.
>This may be of utility for the RDF Core WG, but is certainly not helpful to
>commenters, for example when the commenter views the issue as one that
>cuts across several documents.

In most cases (I think with just one exception) I have been trying to 
distill comments into separable issues and then assign them to a 'lead' 
document.

>This has happened here, where a single very short message on my part
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html
>has resulted in an email thread that has brought in sections of, at least,
>Primer, Concepts, Syntax, and Schema.  This has resulted in at least two
>issue ids, pfps-15 and pfps-23.  I do not view these as separate issues, so
>the resolution of one is not sufficient for anything without a resolution
>of the other.

That is fair enough.  I suggest we consider your response to the 
disposition of pfps-15 pending for now.  When pfps-23 is done, we may be 
able to update that.


>The situation here is even more difficult for me as the message pointed to
>from pfps-15
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html
>is a long message that mentions much more than Primer.  From this
>information how can I determine the scope that the RDF Core WG has assigned
>to pfps-15?  For all I can know agreeing to the suggested change might be
>agreeing that it is a complete solution for everything in the entire
>thread.
>
>I believe that responses from the RDF Core WG should thus indicate what the
>RDF Core WG believes the issue to be.  Otherwise it will not be possible
>for commenters to determine whether their concerns have been adequately
>addressed.

When the issue is recorded, there should be a clear statement of the 
issue.  In the case of pfps-15:

[[The issue

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15

concerns the sentence in the primer:

[[
These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of
the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about
existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98].
]]

which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be
serialized in RDF/XML.

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html

Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter.
]]

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html

Brian
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 12:18:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT