- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:34:14 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 11:18 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > I think what Dan said about requiring a WG vote on every test that is > moved is both procedurally incorrect, and not a big obstacle. > > The test editor, and others at WG discretion, are empowered to make > editorial changes to the tests. In OWL this was explicit see: > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#change > [[ > The editors may make editorial changes to approved and proposed tests. > This includes: > ... > Moving tests to conform with document naming conventions. > ]] I would rather not use that part of the OWL test process. The URI of a test is an integral part of the test, especially for EARL reporting purposes. If you move the test in URI space, you modify it substantially, such that at least *my* approval of it is void, and I think the WG's approval of it should be void. Changing the CVS last-modified date of the input/output files in a test such that they're after the date of the decision also makes the records much harder to audit. Perhaps re-approving tests in bulk is not a big obstacle, but I do see it as a consideration. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 13:34:20 UTC