- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:09:03 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote: > p.s. It is generally frowned upon for organizations who participate in a > WG to comment on drafts after publication, rather than in the WG > (because comments after a publication have a higher requirement for > tracking, etc.) - so again, time to be sure is important. This is a good point. If we seek public comment, and generate comments on the comment list that we could have had in the WG, they require more admin overhead. If we seek public comment, and don't get any comments, then the discussion is largely moot The point of earlier WDs is two-fold: a) to generate comments which would not come from the WG, because the WG is only a narrow cross-section of the population b) to help the world know what direction we are going in Documents which contain too much non-consensus material do not help either of these. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 13:09:42 UTC