- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:33:11 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Right now the TAG is tracking AWWSW poorly. It would be better if it were tracked under some TAG issue. Tracker is the preferred, and only, way the TAG keeps track of things. This is just a clerical matter; it wouldn't change the way we're doing things (unless we wanted it to). Not sure what you're concerned about. If you think how the TAG keeps track os AWWSW is none of our business, you're probably right, but I wanted to alert people that I want to do something along these lines. A new TAG issue might be more appropriate than shoehorning AWWSW into metadata formats, but then we'd have to figure out what the issue was. That might be a good idea in any case. -Jonathan On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Alan Ruttenberg<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > Doesn't seem appropriate. Members of this group are not only TAG > members, and TAG has decision making authority and responsibility that > I can't see fits with how this group works. To my mind tv appropriate > relation of this work group's to the TAG is as input to the latter. > IMO. > > -Alan > > On Sunday, June 14, 2009, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >> This may not matter to anyone but I am thinking of asking to put AWWSW >> work, which does not currently fall under any particular TAG issue, >> under the new ISSUE-63: >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/63 >> Larry Masinter is the one who agitated to create this issue, and he >> may have something very different in mind, but it seems a good place >> to me since RDF written using whatever ontology we produce might >> constitute metadata that would be of the sort presumably covered by >> this issue. >> >> If you have any thoughts on this one way or the other, speak up. >> Otherwise consider this an FYI. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 23:33:52 UTC