W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: rq24 ready for publication

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:46:56 -0500
Message-ID: <20060921084656.C19285@monkeyfist.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:51:51PM +0100, Bijan Parsia muttered something about:
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > Bijan Parsia wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:39:02AM +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In the editor's eyes, rq24 is ready to go out the door.
> >>>> Is this that draft:
> >>>> 	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html
> >>>>
> >>>> And thus the one I should skim-review?
> >>> Indeed. The issues have been whittled down to 2, summary statement
> >>> removed. Keep in mind that this is for a heartbeat publication

That's incorrect; it's not the consensus the WG reached at that meeting, which
was to pub in 2 weeks as a Working Draft. None of us was sure whether that
automatically knocked us out of CR, but we knew that risk when we agreed to
pub a new WD. And, frankly, it's not like we have a choice; rq24 could not
be pub'd as anything but a WD, IMO.

In fact, the editors asked for additional weeks precisely in order to make
substantive changes to the doc, instead of pub'ing a heartbeat pub *immediately*,
which was the other possibility that was proposed.

And, FWIW, there are more than two open issues on the issues list, so
it's not clear why only two of them are highlighted in the rq24
proposed SOTD. Why those and not the others? Why not all of them?

> > The minutes of 5th Septmember [*] record the decision of the WG:
> >
> > """
> > <kendallclark> PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 on or shortly after 19  
> > September,
> > after a sanity-check review by BijanP, and after SOTD updates by  
> > EricP.
> > """

Andy, what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this relevant to the discussion?

You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 13:59:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC