- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:36:57 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
In respect of the action from the last telecon: A9: Brian McBride edit the errata per the resolutions above; i.e. those regarding #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion CONTINUED. [ArtB to work with Brian to get Brian write access to to the errata and to determine a strategy for maintaining the appropriate documents.] Art and I have discussed how to document the WG decisions, taking a number of factors into account: o Updates to the M&S errata document are normative. It would be sensible to get some feedback from the community before taking that step. Further, as we resolve issues, we will discover dependencies between them, e.g. the decision to remove aboutEachPrefix affects rdfms-namespace-prefix-confusion. It is undesirable to keep changing a normative document. o We felt that maintaining the status of issues in a single document would help to ensure a consistent representation of the status of issues was maintained at all times. As I reported at last week's teleconference the M&S errata document: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/errata has been updated to refer to the issues list: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ The issues list document structure has been changed, with a section 'Attention Developers' which summarizes the decisions that affect developers and has links to further more detailed information. I'm trying to find a good balance of ease of maintenance for the WG and effective communications with the RDF community. Please review the issues list format and share your comments. I have scheduled a short discussion for the telecon on 8/Jun 2001, if there is time at the end of the agenda. Brian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 10:38:26 UTC