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

WD Feedback

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:46:15 +0100
Message-ID: <3BB454F7.7040505@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I'd like to seek advice from the WG on how to handle feedback on
RDF Comments on WD's that we publish.

The entrance criteria for a WD to go to last call includes:

   formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants,
   other Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the
   Working Draft.

I'd suggest that feedback can be divided into two broad groups:

   o minor nits, typo's etc that the editor can simply deal with
   o more substantive issues that require discussion/resolution by
     the WG

If we look at any issue raised on RDF Comments, I suggest we need
to be able to identify one of:

   o the raiser of the issue withdraws the issue (this doesn't have
     to be a formal withdrawl e.g. "ok - I see" sort of response
     would do

   o a commitment by the editor (or delegate) to fix in the next
     version (for minor nits)

   o a commitment by the editor to add the issue to the issues list
     for the document (more major issues)

Would it be a good idea for document editors, one month after publication
of a WD a summary of the substantive feedback recieved.

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 17:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC