- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:44:57 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 4 Aug 2009, at 15:31, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC3_Responses/JH1 >>> >>> The tone of JH1 seems unnecessarily hostile. Please at least >>> drop the >>> paragraph beginning, "Comments during the CR phase..." >> >> Isn't there some W3C document that states that comments during CR are >> supposed to be about implementation, not design? I seem to remember >> reading this, but now I can't find the document. > > There may be something in that direction, I think it's more: """Reviewers should not send substantive technical reviews late on the Recommendation track. Reviewers should not expect that a Working Group will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. The more evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less weight substantive comments will carry when provided late on the Recommendation Track. Worthy ideas should be recorded even when not incorporated into a mature document.""" Basically, later comments lack some punch, but still may be made and still must be addressed. And we can easily address them! And in a positive way, for the most part (i.e., direct semantics does what he wants, deprecation *is* a bit weird but yes the Primer can handle it, he's just a bit confused about Profiles but easily straightened out -- though I think more discussion of OWL QL might be helpful, and we (and rif) have provided more support for builtins than ever has existed before and provided a path forward for real support of them). It's mostly clarification. It's also a bit of setting for next version (e.g., for builtins! I *like* having expressed support for that :)). > but it certainly does not > entitle us to ignore comments on the design: > > Starting with a Last Call review up to the transition to Proposed > Recommendation, a Working Group MUST formally address any > substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do > so in a timely manner. > -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html Plus, AC members can still lodge objections with a lot of weight at PR transition time. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:40:34 UTC