- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:16:02 -0400
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > Hi David, > > From your response I gather the following: > > - ISSUES 145, 147 and 159 are already resolved or on the verge of being > resolved > - ISSUE-148 still is a stumbling block from your perspective > > Looking at ISSUE-148 it doesn't appear to be a RDF 1.1 design issue, > more a wording issue. To put it practically: would a test change based > on its outcome? If the answer to that question is "no", then I would > suggest to postpone the exact resolution of this issue until CR. That > would greatly help our timing (there is publication moratorium early Nov > due to TPAC). None of these issues would affect the test cases, so if it is better for the WG to postpone these issue to CR, that is fine with me. thank, David > > Thanks for considering this. > > Best, > Guus > > > > > On 21-10-13 22:40, David Booth wrote: >> Hi Guus, >> >> On 10/16/2013 12:54 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Thanks again for taking the time to review our specs and sending >>> comments. >>> >>> Given the timeline of the WG we would like to move forward, if possible. >>> We would be obliged if you could indicate whether you can live with the >>> responses we sent you w.r.t the following four issues: >>> >>> ISSUE-145 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/145): >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0027.html >>> >> >> I have not had time to adequately study the rationale for the >> identify-versus-denote distinction that Pat Hayes gave regarding >> datatypes. Nonetheless, I think it is unlikely that this issue by >> itself would seem important enough to me to file a formal objection. >> However, in some sense this issue is merely a part of a larger iceberg >> that I am still discussing with Pat Hayes on the www-archive@w3.org >> list, in this thread: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0034.html >> So in that sense, I think it would make sense for the fate of this issue >> to track the fate of that larger issue (probably under ISSUE-148). >> >>> >>> ISSUE-147 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147): >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0046.html >>> >> >> ISSUE-147 is close to being satisfactory. I am awaiting a response from >> Peter Patel-Schneider: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0026.html >> (Hmm, that's not the latest email we exchanged, so it looks like part of >> our conversation inadvertently went off list.) However, I anticipate >> that this will be resolved satisfactorily, i.e., I do not expect it to >> lead to a formal objection. >> >>> >>> ISSUE-148 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148): >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0029.html >>> >> >> ISSUE-148 is very important to me, and I have been discussing the >> iceberg that underlies it, with Pat Hayes: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0034.html >> I hope that we will be able to craft wording that will be acceptable to >> all, so that a formal objection can be avoided, but it is not assured. >> >>> >>> ISSUE-159 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/159): >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0044.html >>> >> >> ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory. I emailed Pat Hayes off list about >> this, and have not yet seen a response: >> [[ >> [Off list] >> >> Hi Pat, >> >> That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation" is >> wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear when >> they are introduced. >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology >> >> >> >> Could you please fix that so that I can send back my official response >> saying that I am happy with this resolution? >> >> Thanks, >> David >> ]] >> >>> >>> It is not our intention to hasten you, but it would really be helpful if >>> you can send a reply before next Tuesday. >>> >>> Thanks a lot in advance for considering this, >>> Guus >> >> Thank you! >> David >> > > > >
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 22:16:30 UTC