- From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:04:49 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Credible Web CG <public-credibility@w3.org>
Should we ignore the June part again, and just think about it as a generic week?? Leonard On 1/29/20, 11:54 AM, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote: I'm thinking it makes sense to have a separate series of meetings to talk about the mechanics of passing around credibility data. So, here we can talk about JSON vs RDFa vs JSON-LD vs SPARQL vs SHACL, etc, and the details of an RDF schema and maybe graph shapes that reflect the signal definitions approved by the main group. If you know something about this stuff (complete expertise not required!) and you'd be willing to help with this, please fill out this scheduling poll. If you already filled out the main poll last week, just tell me, and I can use that data. https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoodle.com%2Fpoll%2Fybaeerm52g84ekma&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cebc6e2cd201c47c7b82c08d7a4dbdfc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637159136566841408&sdata=Wl79%2BFYviT167HgTSdWSn5wPgH%2BvE%2BY3UF4Wfc8arwY%3D&reserved=0 I'm thinking we can do it every week for a few weeks -- hoping it wont take that many meetings before we have a reasonable draft and can take a break. Thanks! -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 17:04:54 UTC