W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Proccess to last call

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:18:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020719030719.0415a080@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

 From http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/

I think it's covered by this decision:
[[
log The WG decided to consider producing a new document to describe the RDF 
graph, possibly called "Resource Description Framework". This will include 
description of the graph synax, what it means to assert, character 
normalization and possibly some other material from the primer. Graham and 
Jeremy to be editors.
]]
in the sense that it's become a document issue.

There was some discussion at the f2f of the assertion issue against a 
background of social aspects of RDF deployment (in discussions in/after the 
telecon prior to the F2F, the omission of any discussion of the social 
environment of RDF deployment had been noted).  Section 2.3 of the new RDF 
document [1] resulted from this.  Assertion is covered at sub-section 2.3.4 
[2] (and still needs review/discussion).

#g
--

[1] 
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-06-27/Overview.htm#section-Meaning

[2] 
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-06-27/Overview.htm#section-Asserting

At 05:14 PM 7/18/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 17:06, Brian McBride wrote:
> > At 16:50 18/07/2002 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:21, Brian McBride wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Up till now we have been using an issue driven process and that has 
> served
> > > > us well, but now that we are down to one open issue,
> > >
> > >Which one is that?
> > >
> > >I see a number of issues "for discussion"; in particular,
> > >http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
> >
> > Datatypes.  Issue list needs updating.  I'm behind.  Sorry.
>
>Quite allright; but it's news to me that rdfms-assertion
>is resolved. I looked pretty hard for a record of
>a decision to resolve it, and I couldn't find one.
>
>Brian's clearly got plenty to do; can anybody *else*
>help me find a record of a decision to close
>rdfms-assertion?
>
>There's not a lot of urgency, but if somebody
>has it handy...
>
> >
> > Brian
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 22:06:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:52 EDT