- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:29:10 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 16:57 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >>Is it normal to have an acknowledgement of prior art section in a W3C >>recommendation? A quick scan of other recs suggests that it is not. Any >>acknowledgements sections seem to be acknowledgements to the WG process, not >>to prior art. >> >>As this is not an academic paper, I propose continuing to not have a prior >>art section. > > > First, note that UC&R has a "Related Technologies and Standards" > section > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#relts > that cites prior work indirectly via the "RDF Query Survey". In our > response to Jacco van Ossenbruggen, let's note that. Agreed. > > Second, re acknowledgements in rq23 itself, I wrote about > this back on 21 Mar 2005: > > "Eek... no acknowledgements section... I recommend you add one, > and each time you integrate a comment, acknowledge the commentor > by name." > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0383 That is fine - it was a "prior art" section that the requestor was requesting. Andy > > See also a posting to the TAG internal list > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2004Oct/0028 > > Since I wrote it, I can quote it here in public: > > [[ > For the acknowledgements section, I prefer the style where > each contributor is acknowledged by name. I just did > a scan of the (5000 line) CVS history of webarch.html, > and here are the by-name references to contributors > that I found. I'd like to see these in the acks section. > ]] > > And Norm agreed, and the result is: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#acks > > > >>In practical terms there are real problems: in SPARQL there are ideas that >>were independently invented/suggested by more than one party, ideas that >>started in personal email many years before the WG started and ideas that >>have morphed so much form the initial idea as to be distinctly different. >>We have already had a similar request for references to non-RDF query >>systems. The only consist and fair policy is to have no such section. > > > I'm not sure that's the only fair policy, but I agree that it's probably > more trouble than it's worth to do a nice edited history of the ideas > in SPARQL. > > I think it *is* worth some trouble to put in the acknowledgements > section the name of every person who contributed text to the > spec, though. > > >> Andy
Received on Monday, 1 August 2005 08:30:11 UTC