Re: Comments on UC document - reminder

On May 20, 2010, at 01:03 PM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> This is a reminder that per WG resolution [1]:
> 
> "All comments must be sent it this week (by end-of-Saturday) and comments
> must be precise about what sentences they don't understand/like and ideally
> suggest textual changes"
> 
> So far I am aware of one comment [2] from Ashok (and thanks to Lee who
> converted and linked it from [2]!)
> 
> Cheers,
>      Michael
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#item04
> [2] 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements/Reviews



I am personally quite frustrated and greatly disheartened by how 
this process has been playing out.

Several of Ashok's comments are effectively "take this section
that the concall previously agreed was a good idea, out" -- about 
sections and content pieces supporting which my voice has been 
significant (but not alone).  It disturbs me that we are once 
again revisiting decisions which have already been revisited 
several times, and the group is seemingly willing to change things 
based on the last comment heard.

I am quite frustrated that several of Ashok's comments are written
from an apparent perspective of this revision producing a FINAL 
document, such as the "drop the Glossary if we can't get it right 
immediately."  We've agreed that some of the terms we're using 
need local definition -- and this is an easy way to provide that -- 
but we may not have the time to define them properly before this 
DRAFT publication.  Dropping the Glossary from this draft is more 
likely to have it left out of the final product, than leaving it 
here in imperfect, unfinished form.

The only person I've ever heard of who made perfect working drafts
was Mozart, and that may well be apocryphal.  As a WORKING DRAFT,
this need not be perfect -- but if we're dropping large chunks
because they're imperfect, then AT THE LEAST I want their section-
heads and a small note that "text is in progress" to remain, along 
with a new page within the wiki in which those sections of text will 
be retained for further work toward the next round.

My previous comments went in on time according to past resolutions,
but even when those comments were agreed with and apparently accepted 
(such as some pro-/de-motion and renumbering of subsections of Eric's
HCLS Use Case), I do not see them reflected in the document.

The only changes which weren't made inline during the concall which 
*have* been reflected are the revised graphics which Juan and I worked 
on -- but the revised graphics only work properly if the text around 
them gets the reordering and minor adjustments previously submitted.

I cannot spare the time to review the full document *again*, along
with any other comments, but I felt it important that my voice be 
heard before I go offline (returning June 2).

Be seeing you,

Ted




--
A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
        10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
                                 http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
                               http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
    Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers

Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 17:48:42 UTC