- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:14:31 +0100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 20/06/13 21:50, Ghislain Atemezing wrote: > 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... Please decouple this from the specific case of ORG and OWL Time. If there is to be a vocabularies activity then clarifying the status of existing vocabularies perhaps could be part of that. Dave >> 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 >
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 22:15:01 UTC