Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote

At 16:42 19/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

>The message that I received, accepting the comment as an issue, indicates
>that the remedy that the RDF Core WG has decided on would consist of
>letting the RDF Primer editor suggest a change to the RDF Primer.  I
>believe that this response does not address the entirety of my comment.  I
>am unaware of any other efforts that the RDF Core WG will be undertaking to
>address the rest of my comment.  Therefore I have indicated that I believe
>that the response does not address my comment to my satisfaction, and,
>moreover, have provided one reason why.
>
>I am unaware of any part of the W3C process that requires me to measure the
>acceptability of the response by a characterisation of my comments
>determined by the RDF Core WG.  The RDF Core WG is, of course, free to make
>their own determination of what I meant in my comments, and respond using
>this determination, but I think that I am free to differ.

Peter,

I think I see a misunderstanding here.  I believe you think that because we 
are asking you whether the WG's resolution of pfps-15 is satisfactory, we 
are asking you whether all the issues you raised in the your initial 
message and subsequent discussion have been dealt with to your satisfaction.

This may not be the case.

Let me explain how I would like this to work.  The process goes a little 
like this:

   - the WG receives an email

it is not unusual for there to be several separarable comments in one 
incoming email, nor for it to be unclear to the WG what exactly the comment 
is about

   - the WG clarifies the comments in the email, raising a separate issue 
for each comment which is recorded in the comments list at

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/

   this is the process of turning the incoming emails into specific 
comments the wg can deal with and the list at that url is the master of 
list individual issues the WG has to be concerned about.  If an issue is 
not recorded in this list, then the WG have not recognised the issue.

   - the WG considers each comment on its list and responds individually 
about each, asking the commentor whether that individual issue has been 
dealt with satisfactorily.

You are saying that not all the points you raised in that email thread have 
been dealt with.  So either we should be able to point to separate issues 
for those points, or the process of clarification has failed and they have 
been missed.

As part of the clarification process, you should have been satisfied that 
all your comments had been capture in the comments list.  If that is not 
the case, please could you identify those aspects which have been missed.

Brian

Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 08:57:20 UTC