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

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-01-17

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:27:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3E2812E1.6810073E@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Brian McBride wrote:
> At 07:45 17/01/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
> [...]
> >Brian--
> >
> >I don't wish to unnecessarily raise process issues, but as I read
> >Section 5.2.2 of the process document, where point number two says that
> >one of the entrance criteria is:
> >
> >"formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants, other
> >Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the Working Draft"
> >
> >I don't believe Primer technically meets this criterion (assuming I'm
> >interpreting it properly), since I have not yet responded to PPS's Dec.
> >27 set of comments about the Primer LCC.  I'm in the process of
> >composing a response, but the comments were rather extensive, and I
> >haven't completely decided what to say I'm going to do about all of them
> >yet.  Sorry if this creates a complication.
> I suggest we take process advice from the W3C folks at the telcon.
> In your judgement as editor, are any of Peter's comments critical?  For
> non-critical comments, what we have done on the other docs is to say thanks
> for the comments, these are editorial and we will fix them during the last
> call process.  I've explained to Peter this our strategy offlist.


My problem here is that I'm not sure to what extent my judgement and
Peter's are consistent as to what is "critical".  I actually don't think
any of them are critical as far as going to last call is concerned, but
obviously he may disagree.  Some of them are clearly editorial, or
clarifying points he thinks may mislead people, and of those, some of
them I can see he has a point about and intend to try to address (in
some cases after last call), and am saying so.  Some of them I need
further guidance from him on (and am saying that).  He's said it's
misleading to start off using an example that describes a Web page
(because it actually has a URL, and this mixes up the usage of URIs as
abstract identifiers and as things that can actually be retrieved), but
I did that for what I think are pedagogical reasons (I wanted to
introduce the idea of URIs to identify things, and people are used to
URIs identifying web pages, so I start with that).  If I have to change
that, it means some substantial rewriting.  Similarly, he doesn't like
the appearance of the material on containers and reification, and the
discussion of "intended meaning" but we've been through that and I don't
think we plan to change it now (besides it being in Semantics the last
time I looked).  I can, of course, further amplify on the fact that
these are just suggested conventions if necessary (but I thought I was
pretty clear on that already). He's also said he wants datatypes used
more in the examples;  I can do that (although I was trying to avoid too
much of that, because it makes the RDF/XML look really ugly without
introducing entities, which I didn't want to do, and I wanted to get
across the idea that the RDF/XML was really not too bad).  My intent is
to formally address, in the sense of respond to, all his comments (but
not necessarily agree with all of them).  I'm was just reporting that I
haven't done that yet.


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 09:27:55 UTC

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