- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
- To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> Subject: Re: (resolution status/documents)Re: minutes for 17 October Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:50:48 -0400 [...] > 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. I've had better tracking related to my comments on documents (published and non-published) within a WG than with my comments on documents (published, including LC, and non-published) that come from other WGs in the Semantic Web activity. Admittedly, the tracking systems are often different for published documents, particularly LC, CR and PR, than they are for non-published documents. Also, this is just anecdotal evidence, but I have generated quite a number of comments on various W3C documents. A reasonable tracking mechanism for comments should be able to send email to the originator of the comment and even check if the originator responded, which should suffice for tracking comments on regular WDs. In any case, all we need to overcome this particular problem is to make an internal editor's draft immediately after the WD and have WG member organizations make comments against that inside the WG. [...] peter
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 13:44:54 UTC