W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: Regarding new working drafts

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:10:59 -0600
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <danbri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AOEKLHGMHIHGNIBEDMNMIEFKDEAA.shelleyp@burningbird.net>

> At 08:03 14/11/2002 -0600, Shelley Powers wrote:
> >Rather extensive release of new working drafts.
> Yup - there's a lot to read.
> >  In addition to the effort on
> >the book, I'm writing an article about this release for O'Reilly
> Network for
> >next week.
> Cool.
> >I had some questions related to a RDF release timeline:
> >
> >- how is this going to impact on your schedule? What is your new
> schedule?
> >The page still reflects a September finish for the working group.
> The microschedule section of the WG page is the most information
> I have at
> this time.  We are hoping to move forward quickly, but that
> depends on what
> last call feedback we get etc.
> I should also make it clear that the microschedule is a stretch goal for
> the WG, rather than a prediction of what will happen.
> >- I read with concern the comment from Dan Connolly when he was
> discussing
> >reviewers, "Or do we expect the next one to be substantially
> different?" Are
> >we back to the beginning with a whole new round of documents with this
> >release?
> If I recall correctly, Dan's comment was specifically concerning
> the primer
> about which he has some editorial concerns.  I'm afraid I don't
> understand
> your question in the last sentence.
> >- can we expect the implementations related to RDF -- the APIs and the
> >tools, applications, etc. -- to be able to focus in on these releases
> >without too much concern for future refinements of the documents?
> The WG believes that it has resolved the technical issues that it
> faced and
> has written these up in the recent swathe of WD's.  The intention is that
> the technical content of these documents will not change significantly,
> though there may be editorial changes.  In other words we are not
> planning
> to change what we say (much), only how we say it.  All that of course, is
> dependent on what feedback we receive on these documents.
> Does that help?

That does help Brian. I'm not as concerned about editorial changes as I am
of document and specification architectural changes. For instance,
implementing separate semantic and concept documents rather than one model
theory document is an architectural change; tweaking the writing in the new
documents is purely editorial.

Collection is an RDF architectural change; adding new examples of how
collections work to the documents is pure editorial.

My concern is that I'm looking for the stick in the ground, that 'x' that
marks that spot, that says the group basically considers this the RDF
specification it's going forward with and outside of minor tweaks to the
documents, this is what the group will live with and anything new will have
to be resolved in future releases of the specifications.

Can we consider this release of all of these documents to represent that

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 12:15:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC