- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:55:01 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cg2wg@w3.org
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:47:20 +0200, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > On 07/12/2013 08:39 AM, Coralie Mercier wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:21:13 +0200, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 07/11/2013 10:19 PM, Coralie Mercier wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear fellow participants of the task force, >>>> >>>> The draft slides for the proposal to W3M for the upcoming f2f meeting >>>> on 18-Jul are at: >>>> https://www.w3.org/2013/Talks/cm-0718-cg2wg-woods/ >>>> [...] >>> >>> Minor point: To what WG? >>> >>> # Ontology-Lexica (to existing W3C WG) >> >> I don't know. The source is the questionnaire. The chair of the CG left >> this comment: >> >> [[ discussed with Ivan Herman who recommended to produce a vocabulary >> and host it under W3C Vocab. ]] >> >> Maybe you know which existing W3C WG that would be? >> > > Ah... It's a (proposed) service, not a WG. > http://www.w3.org/2013/04/vocabs/ > > Short version: we don't think WG's are a very good fit for vocabulary > standardization; instead, CGs and some web-based coordination services > will probably be better. That's what the chair is thinking here, I > think. Aha, thanks for the clarification. So, I understand this is work brought to us (or made at W3C by the community) but not work for the rec track. I propose to remove ontolex from the slide on transitions in the middle term: http://www.w3.org/2013/Talks/cm-0718-cg2wg-woods/Overview.html#(5) Any objection? Coralie -- Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org mailto:coralie@w3.org +33643220001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 12:55:11 UTC