Re: [RDFTM, All] Note proposal - rdftm survey

Valentina, are there any editorial remarks that should be added to
the Status of this Document section?  Or should I only update the
third paragraph of that section to say that the Working Group does
not plan any further revisions to this document?

At 10:58 AM 11/17/2005 +0100, Valentina Presutti wrote:

>Dear Guus,
>
>exactly. The document didn't change since the last publication and we  
>didn't have new comments after that.
>(I wasn't sure about what information were needed)
>
>So, the TF will wait for the Working Group to decide about the Note  
>publication.
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Best regards,
>Valentina
>
>
>
>>Valentina,
>>
>>OK, you provided precisely the information I was looking. For a new  
>>publication it is good practice to summarize the changes. So, here,  
>>no comments since last publication, no changes, so a good reason to  
>>go for a Working Group Note.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Guus
>>
>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>Ciao,
>>>Valentina
>>>On Nov 16, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Valentina Presutti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dear all,
>>>>>the RDFTM Task Force would like to propose
>>>>>the "2005-03-29" W3C Working Group draft of the
>>>>>"A Survey of RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability Proposals"
>>>>>for W3C Public Note publication:
>>>>>http://www.w3.org/TR/rdftm-survey/