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

Re: what do we need for the CR meeting?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:58:26 -0400
Message-ID: <52683872.9000102@gmail.com>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
OK, the information is available elsewhere, so I'm happy.

peter

On 10/23/2013 04:56 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
>
> 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 20:58:59 UTC

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