- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:26:44 +0200
- 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