- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:08:22 -0500 (EST)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: ISSUE-93 (Language tags): RFC 3066 - Tags for the Identification of Languages Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:29:48 -0500 > > > > > 2/ The current document points to a document that is controlled by a > > > > single person. I expect that this is not appropriate for a W3C > > > > rec-track document. > > > > > > I'm not following this closely, but I think you're talking about the > > > turtle spec, which got a step more official on Monday with: > > > http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ > > > > > > (There's also http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/) > > > > > > -- Sandro > > > > Hmm. Only one, small, step more official. > > The main effect of this submission, as I understand it, is to guarantee > (to the extent W3C can) that the document won't go 404. That's required > for some purposes (eg registration of the mime type). > > > By publishing this document, David Beckett and Tim Berners-Lee > > have made a formal submission to W3C for discussion. Publication > > of this document by W3C indicates no endorsement of its content > > by W3C, nor that W3C has, is, or will be allocating any > > resources to the issues addressed by it. This document is not > > the product of a chartered W3C group, but is published as > > potential input to the W3C Process. Please consult the complete > > list of acknowledged W3C Team Submissions. > > > > I note that the n3 submission is full of typos and other grammatical > > problems, including at least five in the "Status of This Document" > > section. The Turtle submission also has a typo in its "Status of This > > Document" section. > > TimBL sometimes jokes that if he got the typos out of his work, no one > would believe he wrote it. (Although I don't think the SOTDs are from > him.) > > If you've actually read through the documents, it'd be great if you'd > send along any constructive comments you have. > > - s As I've said in some other contexts, I'm willing to provide what I consider to be constructive comments on many documents, however, I don't guarantee that the authors will like my comments. peter
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 14:36:28 UTC