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

Re: response to issue pfps-10

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:48:46 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b01ba66f08ee0fc@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com

>For substantive issues, i.e. those in
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
>please don't send a response
>to the commentor until the WG has agreed
>to your proposed disposition. (You can write a "thanks for the comment,
>stay tuned" msg, but not a "here's how we disposed of your comment(s)").

I didnt intend that any of these were at the disposition stage; the 
intent was to get a reasonably quick feedback from Peter in case 
there was some issue that I hadnt fully grokked. There often is, I 
find, in his messages. I take his 'need to see the full document' 
response as a go-ahead to move to a reviewable disposition, and the 
more technical objections as indications that I have more work to do 
before even asking the WG to consider the change. For example, it 
seems I had been using an old version of Concepts to refer to for the 
XML literal rules, which Peter caught.

>And when you do write to the commentor, pls do it in
>the original thread,

I feel in a bind here. Brian asked me not to CC to rdf-comments, so I 
can't use the original thread.

>  with words the commentor will
>recognize in the subject, and a copy to www-rdf-comments.
>What I'd like you to write to the WG is your proposal
>for how we should dispose of the comments.

That is what I have been doing, albeit rather briefly in some cases, 
and Ive been CCing Peter to increase the bandwidth.

>Perhaps that's what you've been doing.
>But copying the commentor without making it clear that
>you're not (yet) speaking for the WG seems awkward.

Right, I understand. I was just trying to increase the bandwidth 
between Peter and myself in order to get the issues sorted out as 
fast as possible. I didnt expect that the, er, conversation between 
Peter and me would be part of the record at this stage.

>Not speaking as nor for the chair, but presumably
>consistent with him...
>with my one good hand...

Ouch. I hope its mending.


>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   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 Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:47:03 UTC

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