Re: ISSUE-177 draft response

Yes, seems reasonable. By the way I was very relieved to receive
Jeremy's positive comment on this, I had hoped for feedback on this

I would be happy to distinguish normative references (I guess e.g. RDF
Semantics) from informative references (I guess e.g. BS8723) If others
think it worthwhile. I don't mind either way.



On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:00:39PM +0100, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> Hi all,
> Here's a draft response to Jeremy on [ISSUE-177], let me know what you
> think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
> wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
> Jeremy. Feel free to post your thoughts at any time, Jeremy
> 	Sean
> Dear Jeremy
> Thank you for your comments [1]:
> 1) labeling normative material (editorial - suggest no or little
> change)
> I assume this issue has been considered before, however I think I
> like it how it is.
> My immediate reaction on seeing an LC Rec track doc that does not
> clearly label either normative material or informative material or
> both, is to request such labeling, since it is usually a good
> practice.
> Once I had finished the ToC I had determined that this would be one
> of my comments.
> However, by the time I had finished 1.3 I was having second
> thoughts on this, and overall, I think the document gives subtle
> gradations of normativity to its various constraints and
> recommendations, which quite possibly actually works, and such
> subtly cannot be achieved with the hammer of "1. Introduction
> (Informative)". In general it is not a good practice to omit such
> labeling because it relies on having editors who can write well. I
> believe this to be the case in this instance.
> Perhaps the references should be split into normative references
> and informative ones ...
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> We are pleased to note your comments regarding the quality of the  
> overall writing of the document. We believe that the distinction between 
> normative and informative material is sufficient in the document in its 
> current form. We also note that no other comments have been received on 
> this point, and conclude that others in the community do not see problems 
> in the lack of "sledgehammmer" labelling.
> As a result, we propose no change in response to your comment.
> Cheers,
> 	Sean Bechhofer
> 	Alistair Miles
> [ISSUE-177]
> [1]
> --
> Sean Bechhofer
> School of Computer Science
> University of Manchester

Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:18:50 UTC