W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [SE] comments on primer

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:24:46 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Holger Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com>
Message-ID: <OF92B4784A.1A03A3F0-ON802570F3.0053BD1D-802570F3.0054ABE9@uk.ibm.com>





Jeremy,

We are more than happy with your review to date and are, or course, more
than happy to aim for closure sooner rather than later. I don't believe
that any further substantial review is needed given that most of the recent
changes were around the introduction sections with a little restructuring
thrown in for good measure. However if you do have major concerns, then
opening up the note for another round of review would be fine.

I will personally ensure that new comments are catered for and an updated
version should appear online in the next couple of days.

We will still list this as 'Editors Draft' until we get your final
approval.

Any problems, just let any of the TF know.

Best Regards,

Philip Tetlow
Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
IBM Business Consulting Services

Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
Leeds, LS15 8ZB
Current Assignment:
Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com


                                                                           
             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             <jjc@hpl.hp.com>                                              
                                                                        To 
             11/01/2006 14:49          Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
                                                                        cc 
                                       public-swbp-wg@w3.org               
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [SE] comments on primer         
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Phil Tetlow wrote:
>
>
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Many thanks for your input. I guess we should wait for your complete
review
> of the updated version before preceeding with your comments? Can we
assume
> a couple of weeks for further review?
>

I was not planning a further complete review.

My understanding was that we were looking for closure on the comments I
had already made, rather than a new review of the final doc. Hence, I
was ready to OK the doc, with the two minor changes I indicated.

I was surprised by the amount of change since the version I reviewed,
but without doing a side-by-side comparison I don't think I can tell if
the changes are significant, and I am happy to defer to your judgment.
[My sense of change may well be because in addressing my comments, the
parts of the doc on which I commented were changed]

Do you think a further review is needed?

(The version I reviewed was from just before the F2F; I can't see a
snapshot of it, but I assume it is in CVS somewhere. The figure number
that I referred to in my comments with RDFIndividual seems to be
different in all of the versions with snapshots)

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:25:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC