I would prefer to include the tidy-up text using "reference" as word and avoid the current implementation specifics, but leave the actual method renaming for later unless we get a quick agreement.
On 23 April 2015 at 20:36, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, language issue, I actually wanted to say something like: > "when COMMONSRDF-6 will be resolved (...)" > > Either discuss a better naming and text or shift it for 0.2 are valid > options. But clearly it's an aspect that requires further discussion, and > last minute changes could not get the required consensus. So I would > personally prefer to keep it as it is for now, a resolve COMMONSRDF-6 in > the next release. > > What all the other people think? > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 23/04/15 16:21, Sergio Fernández wrote: >> >>> With COMMONSRDF-6 resolved we' d be ready to release. >>> >> >> Declaring COMMONSRDF-6 resolved at the last minute is what I think is a >> bad idea. >> >> The current text is using the word/concept of "identifier" in two >> different ways. The qualified text is reasonable (if you know the answer!) >> but I remain unconvinced that adjacent uses is helpful or the new split of >> class/factory text works (see suggestion on JIRA) ; I want to take time >> over reviewing changes and suggesting more but not to let that stop a >> release. >> >> Let's leave this open across the release with no more than our "best" >> approximation for now (AKA what happens to be in the codebase at the >> release point). >> >> Andy >> > > > > -- > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: [email protected] > w: http://redlink.co -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
