RE: Changes to make S&AS consistent with RDF Semantics document

This is not specifically addressed at any particular message in this
thread, but as chair I want to step in and point something out:
 Every one of you is supposed to have read the Process document and agreed
to abide by it.   If you go review what is meant by Last Call, Candidate
Rec, Proposed Rec etc. you will see that from my chairs' perspective that
the current conversation is a bit odd
  No more design is allowed now - period!  We can fix bugs, but if there
is a major problem in a document, then our only choice is to go back to
before Last Call, change the document, and go through the last 6 months
all over again.  I don't want to do that!   Several of the things HErman
suggested were changes that were editorial change to be commensurate with
RDF and those were well worth doing and were done.  But some of what you
folks are arguing are design changes -- and those would require us to go
back a number of steps.
  I'm pretty sure no one is arguing for this - but I want to make it clear
to outsiders that even though we are discussing things about this document
- we are NOT proposing to actually make these changes at this time - we
already made our decision to move to PR and have told the W3C what that
document is.  If we find some errors in it, we can produce an errata
  SO please, be careful not to convey the idea that we are discussing an
error in our design - discussing the "research" to create a new model
theory is interesting and wonderful (although rdf-logic would be a better
place for it).  Discussing minor editorial things we could catch now if
(and only if) we can do it before publication is finalized is also okay
(but they may not get into the document until they are released as
errata).  Suggesting major changes at this time is out of order unless you
are absolutely sure that you have discovered something new, horrible (you
cannot live with it), and that it would be worth taking 6 months to fix.
Because that is what the process restrictions are on us at this time
p.s. If you don't like the above, please go reread our charter that you
signed up for -- we are not writing a research paper that wants to be
state of the art -- we are editing a document that is an adequate
description of the language we have designed -- these are not the same

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:02:43 UTC