W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: ACTION summary

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:48:55 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0912220348j6b6acfd9w1462ced1219be4e4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
ACTION-154: Sandro to work with birte to figure out video conference
facilities for F2F3.
Can this be closed re:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0624.html
?

Can be closed from my point of view. Sandro and I exchanged specs of
the teleconf systems and they have compatible modes.
Birte


2009/12/22 Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>:
> Below is a summary of the open actions we currently have. We might not want to go through all actions in the TC
> today to not loose time on the draft discussion, so I just start with those actions which can be probably closed:
>
> CAN BE CLOSED?
> ==============
>
> ACTION-134: Steve and Andy to figure out what happens with SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank)
> I'd suggest to close ACTION-134 referring to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0539.html
> probably convert it into an issue?
>
> ACTION-135: Steve to summarize Query security issues in security section once document has been merged
> I'd suggest to close ACTION-135 re: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#security
> Shall we task Steve to link issue-19 from there?
>
> ACTION-136: Axel to ask Paul to look at security section in Update document
> I'd suggest to close ACTION-136 re:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#sec_security
> Shall we task Paul to link issue-19 from there?
>
> ACTION-144: Paul to start conversation in an email about uses cases for INSERT / DELETE
> can be closed?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0551.html
>
> ACTION-154: Sandro to work with birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3.
> Can this be closed re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0624.html ?
>
> LEFT OPEN:
> ==========
>
> I would leave the following actions open for the moment, not having enough information about them,
> if anyone thinks different, let me know:
>
> ACTION-70: open
> ACTION-77: open
> ACTION-116: open. Does the note on RESTful-ness in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/
>  discharge this action?
> ACTION-126: open
> ACTION-130: open
> ACTION-131: open
> ACTION-132: open
> ACTION-146: open, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0628.html
> Paul, do you suggest to close issue-20? I would still like to draft some examples on that involving empty graphs.
> ACTION-150: open
> ACTION-152, ACTION-150, ACTION-149, ACTION-148: although some mails have been sent, I suggest that these should
> all be put consistently in a separate subsection "Changelog" under the "Status" section and thus leave them open.
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 11:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT