RE: [OEP] Comments on Specified Values Note

I did not send such a message, because I was waiting for Alan to pass me
his final version. I don't recall Alan responding to my last list of
suggested edits, nor my offer to do them for him.  So I have regarded it
as pending. 

On the understanding that the wording was removed which overtly states
Pros and Cons, I hereby and formally declare that the next version
consists only of editorial changes.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph R. Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:09 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [OEP] Comments on Specified Values Note



Mike, et. al.

I am working on the document transition request for Working Draft to
Note for the Specified Values editor's draft [1].

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SpecifiedValues-20050405/

I am putting together the pointers to WG resolutions that are required
to document the WG's agreement to make the transition request.

In reply to your review comments, Chris wrote on 6 March:

>  Mike,
>
>  Thanks for the careful review, however you have not yet completed 
> your
>  action, you must send a note to the WG indicating that only editorial

>  changes have been made since the last WD

  --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0069.html

To which your last reply seems to have been on 7 March:

At 12:07 PM 3/7/2005 -0800, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>Alan,
> 
>If you wish, I will happily make any editorial changes that you agree 
>with. This will save an hour or two of your effort.
> 
>Let me know which ones to include/exclude.

  --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0076.html

Chris' message was consistent with the WG resolution taken on 3 March:

>PROPOSED: to conclude work on Representing Specified Values in OWL: 
>"value partitions" and "value sets" by publishing it as a Note, 
>contingent on confirmation by Mike Uschold that changes since 3 Aug are

>editorial
>
><dlm> hand raising from dlm
>
>so RESOLVED

-- http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes#item05

In the 24 March WG telecon it was reported that Alan had declined all
your proposed changes:

>"re value partitions ... alan decided not to make the change ...  so 
>all actions considered completed, can we make them notes?"

  -- http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-swbp-irc#T18-44-45
and
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Apr/0022.html

You were not present at the 24 March telecon, however, and I still
cannot find positive record of your consent to accept the current
editor's draft as our concluding version (i.e. no longer a Working
Draft) of this document.

If you believe you did send such a message, please accept my apologies;
it may be inserted in one of your other messages in the WG mail archive
with an unrelated subject line.

-Ralph

Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 22:32:29 UTC