W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Update Issue List Format

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:59:20 -0500
Message-ID: <3B1FA4D8.303FC6FF@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
> 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.

Input from the community is always in order; I believe we considered
all the input from the community that was available before we
made our decisions. Then we made the decisons. The errata document
is now out of date, no? (it reflects the decision on
ns-confusion but not aboutEachPrefix; $Date: 2001/05/31 17:23:36 $)

If updating it prompts further input from the community, we can
reconsider our decision(s).

>  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.

I would have thought just the opposite: updating the errata often
keeps the community in the loop w.r.t. the progress that we're making.

>   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/

Ah... so it does; that's good...

but I don't see where this comes from:

"Until the results of the WG process are concluded and the W3C Members
and approve the results, any conclusions the RDF Core WG reaches should
be considered non-normative."

In what way are the W3C Members expected to review the results
of our errata dicussions?

> 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.

Hmm... thinking it over, yes, I agree, this is workable.

Maybe it's different from the way I'd have done it, but then...
I believe in He Who Does The Work Makes The Rules.

Ah... one pretty important, if not critical, issue: let's
make the test case repository
  RDF Examples and Miscellaneous Tests
  Thu, 31 May 2001 20:20:38 GMT
easier to find.

Right now, the link from ns-confusion for test cases goes
but I don't think DJB and ILRT want the responsibility of
archiving those tests for the web community forever.

> 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

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 12:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC