- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:27:47 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Procedural irregularity is not enough. <style angry="on"> ??? quote chapter and verse We received last call comments after our PR vote within the comments deadline concerning these issues. I draw attention to the lack of wisdom in having the PR vote before the last call had finished and was assured that the chairs would reopen if substantive issues materialized (it is not clear to me yet that they have, but I fear so). I have also drawn attention to the apparent irregularities in a timely fashion. <style angry="off"> While I am unable to consult with the key HP developer, my sense of what HP would like is for the working group, at the next telecon, to consider the question of making the proposed substantive change or not. If we decide to make the change, then this can be duly recorded, and shown in the change log of the semantics document, and in our call to advance, with appropriate rationale. If we decide not to make the change, then the decision to go to PR should be amended slightly, requiring the semantics editor to make (hopefully slight) changes to his current draft before publishing as proposed recommendation. HP will argue not to make the change. Perhaps voicing this second option as reopening the PR decision was to overstate it. The current semantics editors draft appears inadequate to me to go forward since it is substantively different from the LC2 document, and that substantive change is not recorded as such (for example including a link to a WG decision). Hence, *some* change is needed before the conversation with the director. IMO, the appropriate way to decide what change is to have a discussion at Friday's telecon. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 08:28:14 UTC