W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Spec section 9 (GRDDL Vocabulary)

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:38:49 -0000
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E8D940A5@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

> > How close to having last call candidate spec are we?
> 
> Well, the spec is always a candidate, I suppose... if things 
> go well, I'll have disposed of all @@s one way or another 
> before Henry sends out this week's agenda.

I'm not griping; just was trying to get a clear picture of where folks
think we are.  On this schedule I won't have time to review it before
the telecon this week.
> 
> > Section 9 of the spec has "@@this section needs work".
> 
> Indeed. I haven't finished thinking thru which terms that I'm 
> using in the mechanical rules should be in the GRDDL 
> vocabulary and which should go somewhere else... nor how to 
> get that namespace document to serve well as both a "getting started"
> (i.e. a glorified link to the primer) and a reference.

It's a great deal of work being editor!

> 
> Keep in mind that section numbers change; don't rely on them.
> I adjusted the subject of this message.

Good point and thanks.

> 
> > the mechanical rules appendix is missing.
> 
> Missing? Well, it could use a lot of work, or maybe it could 
> be dropped altogether. But it's there.
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules

You are right - I only looked for it in place - didn't spot the link.

<skulks a bit>I'm not very familiar with N3 rules and was looking for
something to explain to me how to interpret the ones in the spec.  I
don't think we can assume everyone knows how to read them.  That doesn't
seem to be the sort of thing in the mechanical rules document though.

Brian

> 
> Another major @@ is under issue-http-header-links
> @@TODO: integrate the proposal in the spec
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 15:39:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT