Re: Resolution of: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

At 12:45 PM 10/11/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> > There seem to be no responses to Graham's proposed resolution text, and 
> I assume
> > therefore no dissent.  This will be on Friday's telecon agenda.
>
>I agree with it, but I'm not quite sure how it relates to our
>deliverables. Is it already reflected in the model theory
>or one of the other drafts? Are you suggesting that this
>text goes in the model theory spec?

I kind-of share some of this uncertainty, but for very different 
reasons.  (I think I mentioned in a follow-up message that this wasn't text 
for a spec, just a record of our decision about the issue.)

I find the process of document-writing by committee to be confusing and 
unwieldy, and I'm not convinced that it yields the best result.  The kind 
of process that I'm more used to is that an editor or small group of 
editors take responsibility for the document and respond to comments and 
issues raised by the WG -- e.g. exactly what has been happening with the 
model theory document.

My assumption was that the issues were there to make sure all the problems 
discovered were given due consideration, to provide a check-list against 
which a final document could be compared, and to provide some potted audit 
of the rationale that got us to the conclusion.  In the absence of a final 
version of the model theory and/or other relevant document, I'm not sure 
what more can be said right now.

I think the text I write reflects and summarizes the direction that is set 
out in the current version of the model theory document.

>Do we have test cases?

Art's done some, and I've reviewed them.  I think they reflect the intent, 
insofar as test cases can do that.

#g

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 17:05:33 UTC