- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:30:53 +0200
- To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- CC: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 21-10-13 19:24, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > > I had one other piece of feedback, and added a new section to get to a second draft: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/att-0035/fo.html > > The new section is: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/att-0035/fo.html#opposition > > Please take this draft as the final statement of my formal objection unless I indicate otherwise before the transition meeting. > OK, thanks. We will discuss this and also include it in the background material for the transition call. Guus > While I tend to the view that a postponed issue is the most likely outcome here, I hope that when such an issue resurfaces that my comments, and their consideration at the transition meeting might ensure a more successful approach in the charter to the requirement. My ideal outcome remains that the consortium and the WG participants both manage to summon up the energy and resources to resolve this issue in this version. > > > Jeremy J Carroll > Principal Architect > Syapse, Inc. > > > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> I read your draft text. It's very readable and I think the tone is fair. >> >> I haven't consulted the WG on this, but I think it likely we would definitely agree with recording this as a postponed issue (in fact, we should have done that already). >> >> Guus Schreiber >> RDF WG co-chair >> >> >> >> On 18-10-13 23:18, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: >>> FYI >>> >>> Here is a first draft of my formal objection. >>> I am very open to suggested rephrasings to: >>> - correct factual errors >>> - adjust tone and readability >>> - increase effectiveness >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/att-0031/fo.html >>> >>> >>> Jeremy J Carroll >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>>> >>>>> The WG discussed your response today. We're extremely sorry that we have not been able to get to consensus on this. At his point we see no alternative but to leave the situation unchanged. >>>>> >>>>> With respect to our time line: we expect to send the CR transition request on 23 Oct. There will be a time gap of at least one week between the request and the transition call with the director. >>>>> >>>>> We hope you understand our position. Thanks again for the trouble and time you've taken in reviewing our documents. >>>>> >>>>> Very best, >>>>> Guus >>> >
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 17:31:27 UTC