- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:58:26 -0400
- 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