Re: sparql update review

Hi Carlos,

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Carlos Buil Aranda
<cbuilaranda@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Axel,
>
> 2012/9/9 Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>

<snip/>

>> 2) In the beginning of your review  you make some structural change
>> suggestions
>>
>>   "In the beginning I found it messy with starting with non informative
>> sections[...]"
>>
>> we as editors feel it would be too much change to address these at this
>> stage, i.e. if we do
>> some major changes on the structure now, I am afraid, that we need more
>> rounds of
>> review, which would potentially delay the further process.
>> So, I'd wanted to ask you, whether you'd be ok to leave the structure of
>> the doc as it is?
>
> if you think that the structure is ok for people to understand the document
> I'm Ok. I felt that it was a bit complicated for me, but if you think that
> it is clear enough, I'm ok to leave it as it is.

I probably should have called this one out explicitly in a response to you.

I didn't structure the document, so it's not exactly how I'd have done
it. However, it didn't seem bad to me. I'm not completely against
reconsidering this, but it's potentially a big change and given the
timing I'm not sure that's a good idea. Also, without specific
suggestions on how the reorganization would be done, a new structure
that works for me may be just as problematic for others as the current
one.

Given these issues, and the generalized nature of your comment, it
seemed wiser to me that I leave it alone. However, if you have
specifics then I'd be happy to consider working them in.

Regards,
Paul

Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 15:10:39 UTC