- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:03:53 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Graham, I understand that we can always vote. But I would prefer to have a conversation and identify particular issues and ways to resolve those issues, so that we can proceed in a consensus bases fashion. That's why some sort of prioritization from your side is helpful. If we can address your concerns, in particular, if the changes are straightforward we should try to do that. This is less about addressing issues (which will happen) but what is the best time for that occur. Also, will you be on the call Thursday? regards Paul On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Paul, > > I appreciate your problem. But I have to call things as I see them - I don't > think we should sacrifice quality to schedule. And, in any case, if I'm right, > you'll get all these issues raised in last call by people outside the WG. > > If the rest of the group think it's OK to go ahead, then as chair you need to go > with the group consensus, which doesn't have to be unanimous. (FWIW, I'd > probably vote to abstain (-0) rather than oppose (-1) - but I'd want my concerns > to remain on record.) > > #g > -- > > On 08/04/2012 08:48, Paul Groth wrote: >> Graham, >> >> Just to say that in terms of schedule, we have this release and then >> the last call. At least that was the plan. >> >> We'll have to see what other reviewers and the group as a whole stay. >> Also, we need to see what the editor's have to say in terms of time to >> respond to your comments. >> >> I would like to figure out how we can divide the work so that we can >> keep on our schedule i.e. what needs to be addressed for this WD and >> what can be left till the revisions before last call. My general >> feeling is: >> >> - WD5: address any issues with constructs and "easy" editorial issues now an >> - LC: all open issues >> >> Cheers >> Paul >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Graham Klyne<Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Paul, >>> >>> Yes, it's largely a document/text quality thing - I feel it doesn't entirely lay >>> things out clearly enough for its target audience, and in some cases is actively >>> confusing. This may be "editorial", but I think it's important enough to need >>> addressing to move forwards towards LC. There are a few points of substance >>> (mainly stuff that feels superfluous to me), but I wouldn't be surprised to be >>> lone voice on that. >>> >>> I've indicated a number of specific points points in the "details" part of my >>> email, with suggested alternative phrasing, though there are many more (similar >>> to those I detail) that I've skipped over in passing. >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> >>> On 06/04/2012 21:36, Paul Groth wrote: >>>> Hi Graham, >>>> >>>> Just for clarification, given that you think prov-dm is not ready for >>>> release, it's important to understand what exactly could be done to >>>> get it to the point where it is. >>>> >>>> Reading through your points, it seems to me that your comments are >>>> primarily editorial, in that it's the explanation, definition and >>>> organization of the terms that is the issue. Is that a correct >>>> interpretation? >>>> >>>> If not, can you identify the specific things that would need to be >>>> addressed for us to move forward on prov-dm? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Paul >>>> >> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group Artificial Intelligence Section Department of Computer Science VU University Amsterdam
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 09:04:23 UTC