Re: RDF-ISSUE-150: LC Comment: references and acknowledgements [RDF Concepts]

The previous editors should be ack'd.

I am ambivalent about having an informative reference to NGP&T.

I don't think that we need to have an ack to previous series editors.

Having the ACK sections of all the documents looked at is a good idea, but
I'm not volunteering to do it.

peter



On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:02 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> RDF-ISSUE-150: LC Comment: references and acknowledgements [RDF Concepts]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/150
>
> Raised by: Markus Lanthaler
> On product: RDF Concepts
>
> This is a comment on the current last call documents (concepts and
> semantics)
>
> I note that there is no mention of Brian McBride's role in the previous
> round of specifications …
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/
> "The WG decided that bwm will be "series editor" for the WG documents."
>
> - obviously Brian is no longer fulfilling this role, but it is
> conventional to maintain some reference to former editors in the
> acknowledgements or somewhere.
>
> I also note that Graham and I are not called out as former editors in the
> Concepts acknowledgements, in particular, the sentence: "The RDF 2004
> editors acknowledge …" fails to mention who those editors were!
>
> I am also slightly disappointed that there is no informative reference to
> Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust by Carroll, Bizer, Hayes & Stickler;
> with this I realize that the bar is much higher than with acknowledgements
> to former editors so my disappointment is lower!
>
> Overall though I believe the documents may benefit from a review of the
> acknowledgements section by some member of the WG.
>
> Jeremy
>
> --
> http://www.w3.org/mid/E56EE319-CC6E-4CC6-A7B0-31E8A548E462@gmail.com
>
>
>
>