- 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>
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