W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Resolving LC comments (was: pfps-16, proposed resolution)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:47:52 +0100
Message-ID: <3E8ADBF8.1050401@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I will try and avoid getting into a long procedural discussion and just 
continue with two detailed points ...

>> I am at a lost to see why the section title changed, why a new 
>> paragraph on
>> Clark Kent appeared, etc. etc.
Graham Klyne wrote:
> The new paragraphs were additional elements in response to issues 
> macgregor-01, macgregor-02.  Maybe they're unnecessary, but I was trying 
> to respond to the spirit of the issues raised as well as the letter of 
> the issue resolution.  

I felt the WG resolutions were clear - we were going to say less because 
what we had said was inadequate and we didn't have enough effort left to 
say it well. Hence I find it unaceptable to say more.
I am not an expert on proposotional attitudes etc. but I saw this new text 
and assumed that at least some of the people who are would find it 
unacceptable. Adding it seems to go against what I understood as the WG 
position which is a recognition that we wanted to stay clear of some 
philosophical minefields.

> As for the section title changes, I viewed these were editorial 
> refinements that reflected the change of emphasis of the section contents.
>> For instance, the change in the section title breaks W3C guidelines on 
>> case,
>> and so one of the reviewers who was fairly positive would be less so now.
> Oh, grumble.  That change may have been wrong to make, but the 
> capitalization of section headings is something that grates quite 
> severely on me. 

My point here is not that capitalization is good - but simply that the 
documents have been reviewed as is, and while not wanting to freeze them as 
they were at LC I would like to see process in which changes are made 
explicit on the list - having said this, I realise that semantics has 
needed a bigger overhaul than that - but I hope the other documents are not 
getting changed more than is apparent in the e-mail traffic.

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 07:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC