Re: sparql update review

Hi Paul,

thanks for your comments. I agree that it is a big change and there is not
much time to work on, and I also agree that I should have proposed
alternatives, sorry for that. I also prefer to leave it as it is since it
would require too much time. It is a good document that I managed to
understand, but from my point of view, maybe I'd organize it in a different
manner.

cheers,

Carlos

2012/9/10 Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>

> 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
>