Re: EMAIL VOTE on decision to make for owl-time dependency "at risk"

Hi Sandro, all
> Ralph isn't prepared to make an exception of the size we're asking 
> without taking more time to gather input, so we came up with a tactic 
> for postponing the decision: put the normative reference At Risk.  
> This is also asking for input from the community on whether the strict 
> linkage to owl-time is good or bad, and how stable owl-time is 
> considered to be.
>
I suggest to take the opportunity for this to investigate more about the 
status of many vocabularies in th W3C with unclear  status. If you take 
a look at this list [1] collected from LOV, you will find a bunch of 
them (exif, cert, geo, etc). This will prevent in the future to have to 
deal again with this kind of issue...
> It would be very good to publish the CR drafts on Tuesday (because I'm 
> hoping our extension request will be considered Wednesday), so Dave, 
> do you think you can make this change to the document by Monday 
> morning?   If not, I think I can do it.
>
> And everyone else, is this okay?   If there are no -1's (formal 
> objections) by mid-Monday, I'll ask the chairs to confirm this is a 
> group resolution. 
+1, but with an action from the W3C to give a clear status of many of 
the vocabularies listed here [1]

Best,
Ghislain
[1] http://bit.ly/10OGF1z

-- 
---
Ghislain A. Atemezing
Campus SopiaTech
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4- 9300 8178
Fax: +33 (0)4- 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:51:12 UTC