W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-01-31

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:52 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131111818.09b75040@localhost>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 10:29 31/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> > www-rdf-comments
> >   o is for process - not general discussion
> >   o please let editors or the chairs handle comments process
> >   o please keep threads together - i.e. reply to messagage
> >
> > Any other process issues?
> >
> >
>
>I am hoping for still greater clarity at the telecon.
>
>In the example of danc-01, danc-02 - I think there is a discussion to be
>had, and I want WG involvement in that discussion - should I be having this
>discussion:
>- on w3c-rdfcore-wg
>- on www-rdf-comments
>- at the telecon

In general, my mental model is we clarify the issues(s) on comments, then 
take it for discussion within the WG.  If the editor chooses to keep the 
commentor involved, we can use rdf-interest I think - danbri - would that 
be ok?

I'm still hoping that we can:

  a) avoid cross posting
  b) keep comments for process oriented traffic.

Brian

Brian
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 06:21:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:24 EDT