CR comment handling [was: OWL Test Cases and ...]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:58, Jim Hendler wrote:
> It is not clear to me we need to be as careful with responses as we 
> were during LC -- Dan,what is status of comments received during CR?

In our request for Proposed Recommendation, we have
the same obligation to make it clear to The Director
that we've been responsive to all issues raised.
(I/we got a little creative/formal in how we audited things during LC
and didn't finish polishing the presentation,
so our CR request was kinda hard for The Director
to read.)

Within the WG, we have more experience in where the lines
are between editorial and substantive, and between speaking for
the WG vs. speaking as editor, so we could probably
do just as good a job with fewer constraints on the
lines of communication.

e.g. Ian Dickinson reported a problem (Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:15:22 +0100)
with the way rdfs:Literal is punctuated in S&AS. Peter
responded right away by acknowledging this as an editorial
bug and fixing it in his copy. In our LC process,
anything that involved changing bytes in the document
had to be cleared as consistent with WG proceedings
by one of Guus/Dan/Jim, but that probably would have been
overkill here. (In case we decide it's not overkill,
I hereby retroactively approve Peter's reply of
Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:21:34 -0400).

I'm not sure what process we
should use this time around, except that it'll be
important to audit things, at some level, in preparation
for each WG telcon, just like we did during LC.

I'll give it some more thought in preparation
for the 4Sep telcon.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 12:42:02 UTC