- From: Benedikt Kaempgen <kaempgen@fzi.de>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:34:58 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "Government Linked Data Working Group" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
HI, Maybe it makes sense to mention our QB use cases document [1]. Dave, all, thanks a lot for your efforts with the transition process. Best, Benedikt [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-vocab-data-cube-use-cases-20130801/> ________________________________________ Von: Dave Reynolds [dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2013 20:50 An: Government Linked Data Working Group Betreff: ORG and Data Cube transition requests updated I believe I've made the required changes, please check and let me know of any problems or things I've forgotten. o ORG PR request [1] updated to point to WG resolution and to comments summary. o Created ORG comments summary page [2] combining LR comments with a statement that no comments outside of the implementation reports were made during CR. o Updated ORG static html copy to correct a missing link to the patents page which got lost in the move to the new ReSpec. o Data Cube PR request [3] updated to point to WG resolution and to comments summary. o Created Data Cube comments summary page [4] with a summary of CR period comments and copy of the LC summary. [All the comments had already been summarized in the PR request page but not in the form of a comments disposition table.] For the two transition requests Data Cube already had the expected publication date down as 2013-12-17 so I put that for ORG too. Correct if that's not right. Should I generate new static-pr.html snapshots with that date or leave that till after the transition meeting? Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_PR_transition [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_comments [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_PR_transition [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_comments
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 20:35:24 UTC