W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

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

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:26:44 +0200
Message-ID: <5251AB64.3000305@vu.nl>
To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 03-10-13 17:22, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The previous editors should be ack'd.

Right.

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

I think it would be fair to include this from an historical perspective, 
as this has been the reference point for many for quite some time.

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

Brian did actually quite a lot of work on all 2004 docs. Why no include 
him in a similar manner as previous editors?

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

This is the responsibility of the individual editors.

Guus
>
> peter
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:02 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 18:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC