- From: Annette Greiner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 20:54:38 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
My understanding of W3C's process is that we take the best guess of the working group and publish that for input from the community, not that we take what feels the most inclusive and put that forth. By typing +1 in a meeting to publish, one says in effect that they are supportive of the text as it stands and okay with the assumption by the rest of the world that you stand by it. Notes can be helpful for expressing alternatives, so I would expect additional options be shown in notes, thereby remaining inclusive of a minority opinion if there isn’t agreement in the group. The current note, to me, doesn’t clearly state the concern raised at all. I’d prefer to have a note that says some members of the group feel there should be an inverse to inSeries and ask if anyone feels it is important to do so. Given the strong reason not to do so, I think this approach is justified. Re update dates, I think any property that assumes people will make updates to a published dataset’s metadata is flawed. Even the most diligent publishers of data will never be able to update copies of datasets that find their way to secondary sites and to users. Update dates only make sense to me when they reflect the state when the dataset (or series) was published. -- GitHub Notification of comment by agreiner Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1307#issuecomment-803658293 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2021 20:54:40 UTC