W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Regrets. Re: SPARQL TC 2012-12-04

From: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 08:22:34 -0500
Message-ID: <50BDF91A.2080507@oracle.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

I won't be able to make the TC today. I have a conflicting meeting.


On 12/4/2012 2:21 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Dear all,
> Looking over the last two weeks' minutes, I think we have to talk about the following things:
> 1) review ACTIONs
> 2) decide a plan when to vote for PR/Rec, my impression is:
>     Protocol: Exit criterion is met as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-20#resolution_3
>     -->  Ready to vote for PR
>     GSP: Exit criterion is met as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_3
>     -->  Ready for PR
>     Entailment: Exit criterion is met for all but RIF Entailment as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_2
>     -->  2 alternatives:
>           a) we go to PR now and makr RIF Entailment as informative
>           b) we give it another week or two, but define a clear roadmap what to be done when
>              (e.g. additional RIF test cases by next week ready for approval, passed by two engines by
>                    in two weeks means we make RIF entailment normative, otherwise, we leave RIF entailment as
>                    informative)
> 3) As for the docs already in PR, I see not comments or issues that keep us from progressing to REC, but probably we want to go to REC with all docs at the same time.
> My goal would be to vote for PR for the missing docs either next week or in two weeks (also pending availability in two weeks, e.g. I am afraid, I am at risk already
> for 18th, os personally).
> Please let me know if I missed anything!
> best,
> Axel
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 13:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:08 UTC