- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:05:49 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 01:31 14/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How >>much of a disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised >>snapshot by say Monday EOW my time (evening your time)?? > >I'm out of the office from Monday lunchtime till Wed night at a >conference. I think I'll have wireless access there, but can't be >certain. Eric may be able to fill in I have problems. > >Looks like Dan has identified some must fixes so an update is >necessary. I suggest you go ahead but resist the urge to polish >that which doesn't really need it. OK, I take your point. When done (probably late tonight) it will be on my website with the ending _2 instead of _1, I'll leave the older one there. > I'll put the current version in CVS and we can always examine the >diffs, presuming there are not too many. > >>All the changes will be link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing >>earthshaking. I also plan to call out formal technical definitions, >>give them all anchors and put in links from every term use to a >>glossary entry or definition, throughout the text. > >I agree that giving the technical definitions anchors is a good >thing, but I'd rather have stability in the document right now. >There will be an update after last call - could that be done then? Yes. Those later changes will be more to style than to content. >We are now into change control. My mental model is that the WG have >to review the last call document. We need to review that document, >not something that is nearly that document. I don't want to get to >the last call decision and have folks say the doc's changed too much. > >I recommend you stick to must fixes only. OK, will do. Content re-edits and fix broken links only. The big content issue is whether plain literals are XSD strings. That needs to be decided, soon, and may require changes in several documents. I plan to simply be conspicuously agnostic on this issue in this draft of the semantics, by deleting the paragraph that Dan objects to. However I don't think that we should go to last call with this an open issue, I'd like to get it clear one way or the other. I predict that Dan C and Patrick will be at odds over this one. I have no axe to grind on this, but as editor Id rather the document was clear on the point. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 13:05:53 UTC