- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:57:22 +0000
- To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
The following was sent to Jeremy but not cced to the WG. I'm resending so that the tracker will pick it up. Sean Begin forwarded message: > From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk> > Date: 17 October 2008 17:01:24 BDT > To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> > Subject: Re: SKOS Comment (various) [ISSUE-177] > > > > Dear Jeremy > > Thank you for your comments [1,ISSUE-177]: > > 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 to *close* this issue with no change in > response to your comment. Is this acceptable? > > Cheers, > > Sean Bechhofer > Alistair Miles > > [ISSUE-177] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/177 > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/ > 0077.html > > -- > Sean Bechhofer > School of Computer Science > University of Manchester > sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk > http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer > > > -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 11:57:54 UTC