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

Formal Objections: [was Re: regrets for 2003-01-17]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:27:27 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 23:57 16/01/2003 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:

>My regrets for the telecon. My only comments are that my issues (misuse of 
>fragments, using IRIs instead of URIs, overly-complex datatypes solution, 
>... I think that's it) should be noted as required by process.

I think this bit we have to do by the book.  I'm not trying to throw 
process obstacles in the way; I want a full and good review by the 
community, but I'd better make sure we satisfy the process contraints.

The process doc



[[Any time a technical report advances to a higher maturity level, the 
announcement of the transition must indicate any formal objections.]]

It also states:

[[Possible next maturity level. The Working Group may advance a Working 
Draft to Last Call Working Draft.]]

which means that going to last call is an advance in maturity level and 
thus the announcement must indicate any formal objections.

The process doc


further states:

[[A formal objection should include technical arguments and propose changes 
that would remove the dissenter's objection; these proposals may be vague 
or incomplete. The Chair must report an objection that includes such 
information to the Director at later review stages (e.g., in the request to 
the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate Recommendation). If 
an objection does not include this information, the Chair is not required 
to report it at later review stages.]]

At this time, I don't believe the co-chairs have received any formal 

An alternative is to include something less formal in the announcement of 
last call.  Something, perhaps along the lines of:

The working group particularly seeks feedback on:

   o RDF's use of fragment identifiers
   o the introduction of internationalized URI's
   o the datatyping support proposed
   o whether to change the URIREF's for the RDF and RDFS namespaces

The difficulty with this, is that I expect the WG as a whole would agree to 
the last two of these, but I'm not sure whether there would be sufficient 
support for the first two as you may be the only WG member that has an 
issue with those.

Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 06:26:10 UTC

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