- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:42:46 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:21, Brian McBride wrote: > I've updated the issue tracking doc to include objections and responses. > > There is a summary of the objections at [1]. I gather you meant [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ > Each objection links to > the relevant issue (except completeness of entailment rules which may be > about to go away) and its late. > > The relevant issue contains the WG response to the objection. Very nice; I can see the whole issue in one place, and the issues with outstanding dissent are easy to find. I expect this will make briefing The Director quite straightforward, not to mention leaving a nice description of the situation for the community and any future WGs. > I've taken into account feedback from DanC, which includes stating the > conflicting requirements on the datatypes objection and some (much > shorter) text on the I18N issue. Umm... this looks OK (except the "we request..." sentence, about which more below), but the shorter text was intended for the request for PR. I'd prefer to see the table of designs that the WG evaluated in the issues list under http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure > Please review. Umm... under http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes I see "On these grounds the WG asks the director to support the decision of the WG despite outstanding dissent." Please leave that out of the issues list; it belongs only in the request for PR. This issues list has a long lifetime; the request is ephemeral. > The intent is that the request to advance will refer to the objections > in the issue doc. Right. > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 14:42:47 UTC