- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:56:32 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 23-10-13 22:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > The page recording the status of many of the LC issues has been changed > to have "Closed" status. I don't agree with this change, as it removes > the information that is part of the "Resolved" status, namely that the > person who commented is satisfied with the changes that the WG made in > response to the comment. Peter, Look at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-CR-Request#Evidence_that_issues_have_been_formally_addressed There you see that for all 21 issues this information is given in detail: [[ The WG raised in total 21 issues in response to Last Call comments: 14 LC issues were closed with explicit agreement of the commenter. 3 LC issues were closed where the commenter may still want some small editorial change (issues 145, 159 and 166) 1 LC issue was closed with no response from commenter (issue 127) 2 LC issues were considered to be non-blocking and will be addressed during CR (148 & 165). In both cases the commenter explicitly agreed that the issue does not affect tests, so can safely be handled during CR. 1 LC issue (concerning semantics of datasets) was closed over a formal objection from Jeremy Carroll [5]. Extensive discussions took place during the LC period with the commenter and within the WG. The WG felt it could not provide more tha it currently offers [6] and decide to archive this in a new issue and POSTPONE it (ISSUE-167: Stronger semantics of RDF Datasets?). ]] OK? Guus > > My view is that all "Resolved" issues are non-issues at the CR meeting. > However, "Closed" means either that the commenter is satisfied or the WG > decided to continue without ensuring that the commenter is satisfied, > and thus will all need to be addressed, one by one, at the CR meeting. > > Is this going to be the case? If so, issues where the commenter is > satsified should be given a special status so that they don't need to be > considered. > > peter > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 20:57:01 UTC