Re: responses due for editorial changes (was Re: [closed] issue #pfps-10 untyped literals)

>From: pat hayes <>
>Subject: Re: [closed] issue #pfps-10 untyped literals
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:52:31 -0500
>>  It is not practical, and I do not think it would be useful, to give a
>>  detailed list of every textual change made as a result of this
>>  comment.
>Hmm.  Well, if the changes are to be treated as editorial changes, I think
>that this is precisely what is owed.

I do not. This is not an editorial comment: it has been logged and 
considered by the WG. The document is accessible; it is provided with 
an explanatory introductory section relating it to the last call 
document; and I have provided, in email, what I  believe is an 
accurate and comprehensive summary of the relevant technical changes, 
with links to the text of the document. All the nontrivial editorial 
changes in the normative sections of the revised document are marked 
by distinctive text color for ease of checking wording changes, if 
you wish to check that wording in detail.

I know that you have read the document in detail and fully understood 
these changes made in response to your comment, as evidenced by the 
fact that you have already made modifications to the OWL semantics 
document which are based on a detailed and thorough comprehension of 
these changes. I am not interested in continuing to play games with 
you over points of process, and time is passing without us making 
apparent progress on what ought to be, at this stage, a mere tying up 
of ribbons.

As you know, W3C process rules require that we obtain from you an 
either an acknowledgement that you find our response to your comment 
- which in this case refers to the changes to the model theory 
outlined in my last email on this thread - satisfactory, or that you 
do not.

I will therefore interpret any subsequent emails from you on this or 
the original thread which are not clearly  either a request for 
further information, or an acknowledgement that the changes made to 
the MT in response to your original comment are acceptable, as an 
indication that you did *not* find the WG response to your original 
comment satisfactory. The result will be logged and we can move on to 
the next stage of the process.

If you feel that W3C process is being abused, feel free to talk to my 
supervisor about it.


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 19:25:56 UTC