RE: Agenda January 23, 2019 - Profile Guidance subgroup

Hi Antoine,

No, not really comfortable with it, sorry! So far, the use of the phrase "base specification" in text is inevitably linked in the mind of the reader to the Base Specification class definition. If we remove the class, we would, at the very least, need to re-examine all uses of "base specification" but, my preference, is to just remove the term altogether and then, on a second reading of the spec without both Base Specification and "base specification" determine appropriate wording.

I'll add this comment to the Issue.

Nick 

-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> 
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 6:59 AM
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda January 23, 2019 - Profile Guidance subgroup

Hi,

I'm probably going to not be able to attend this one, sorry.
I have one extra agenda point: are you ok with my last proposal at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/664, i.e. proposing a list of the 'base specifications' that I think we should keep? If yes then this would allow us to make progress on this PR.
I'm also happy if someone else wants to take the lead on this, of course.

Cheers,

Antoine

On 22/01/2019 12:31, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> Agenda for the next Guidance group meeting:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:ProfGui-Telecon2019.01.23

> 
> Main points:
> * ESWC paper review – this will likely take the whole meeting as we have 4 detailed reviews
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nick
> 
> *Nicholas Car*
> 
> /Senior Experimental Scientist/
> 
> CSIRO Land & Water
> 
> E nicholas.car@csiro.au <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 560 177 <tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
> 
> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 23:17:06 UTC