- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:57:37 -0400
- To: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- CC: public-cg2wg@w3.org
On 07/12/2013 08:55 AM, Coralie Mercier wrote:
> 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?
>
Sounds good, thanks.
- s
> Coralie
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 12:57:45 UTC