- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:47:42 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 09:19, Brian McBride wrote: > >>We have a request to add a new test case: >> >>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph > > > Er... this looks like the start of a separate issues list again. I'm trying to avoid that. That id identifies a comment, not an issue. > > Please just track comments; i.e. make sure the mail gets answered. > I recommend against sorting by document and I *strongly* > recommend agains making up new names. > > In WebOnt, we relied on the comment archive as the authoritative > source, and built an automated index that allowed us to see > which threads weren't closed: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/lc-status-report.html > > I can't really recommend the automation technique without > reservation; it took about 45 minutes to regenerate by > the end. So manual tracking might be easier. I'd like to reuse what I did before. The WG are used to it. Commentors are used to it. I'm used to it. Threading in the archives just doesn't work reliably. This approach did work last time. But > try not to shift the focus from the issues list > and the comments archive when you're tracking. I will. Brian > > >>essentially a gigo test case. >> >>Do the test case editors propose to add this test case? How many >>implementations will pass it? If not enough, what do was say at request >> to advance to PR? >> >>Brian
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:51:33 UTC