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

Re: book-keeping & suggesting some PROPOSALs to approve per email

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:36:20 -0500
Message-ID: <50D07F64.3060202@thefigtrees.net>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I'm keen on all of these.

On 12/18/2012 5:29 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>
> Reading the recent comments and mails, it sounds to me that we 
> probably may need at least to make some
>
> decisions (mostly book-keeping). I don't think that any of these 
> issues prevent us from publishing
>
> as planned, but it would be good to have them clarified:
>
> I see the following:
>
> 1)Minor editorial fixes in drafts before publication 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0211.html
>
> 2)Test suite bugs
>
> 3)Removing uncommented test cases
>
> I hope we can sort these things out per email, so I'm giving it a try, 
> please post your replies or comments to the following proposals to the 
> list:
>
> PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in query as per 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0210.html
>
> PROPOSED: approve editorial fix in Overview as per 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0209.html
>
>  PROPOSED: remove all unapproved test cases from the manifests (and 
> move them to a separate folder for "unapproved" test cases)
>
> If a sufficient quorum has time and enthusiasm to gather on IRC today 
> at the regular time, maybe some of the things can be sorted 
> out/further discussed there quickly (unfortunately, I won't be able to 
> make it). Otherwise, just in case, if we have any concerns on  the 
> proposals above which we can't sort out per email I suggest:
>
> PROPOSED:  Telco:  15 Jan 2013,  Time of Call: 15:00 UK 
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2011&month=09&day=20&hour=10:00&min=00&sec=0&p1=43>, 
> 10:00 (East US) ... if any of the proposals above raises objections
>
> FWIW, I vote "+1" to all of the above.
>
> Best  regards,
>
> Axel
>
> p.s.: this does not yet contain any proposal on how to proceed with 
> the comment we got on the protocol validator, cf. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Dec/0006.html 
> ... hope this will sorty out per email, if
>
> someone more swapped in could take care, it'd be appreciated!
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 14:36:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT