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

Re: Semantics issues

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:32:27 -0500
Message-ID: <3E355F1A.38AB0362@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


Just to clarify, I believe you've also said that it's only comments that
are "not easy" and get "escalated" by the editors that require explicit
WG consideration, right?  

I'd actually appreciate some further clarification about that.  The only
"easy" cases you explicit mention are those where we can say, in effect,
"we already do that".  If an editor gets a comment and thinks that can
be dealt with by a simple wording change (maybe we "already say that",
but the commenter doesn't think it's clear enough, or something), is
that one that can also be dealt with directly (the editor directly
responds "I propose to deal with that this way, is that OK?", and only
if there's dispute does that get escalated), or should the editor
request a commend id for those immediately?

Sorry to add to the overhead (if that's what I'm doing).


Brian McBride wrote:
> At 11:35 26/01/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [...]
> >Which, looking forward, leads me to suggest that if Pat/Jeremy can agree
> >on an alternative treatment that gives clearer exposition of the intended
> >meaning, they should be allowed discretion to do so.
> We are now in last call.  We need to have a more formal process for dealing
> with changes from now on.  I believe there are last call comments around
> this issue.   The WG must consider and agree a disposition of each
> comment.  Let's hope there are not too many for us to cope with.
> Brian

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 Monday, 27 January 2003 11:36:29 UTC

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