- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:29:48 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> > > 2/ The current document points to a document that is controlled by a
> > > single person. I expect that this is not appropriate for a W3C
> > > rec-track document.
> >
> > I'm not following this closely, but I think you're talking about the
> > turtle spec, which got a step more official on Monday with:
> > http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/
> >
> > (There's also http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/n3/)
> >
> > -- Sandro
>
> Hmm. Only one, small, step more official.
The main effect of this submission, as I understand it, is to guarantee
(to the extent W3C can) that the document won't go 404. That's required
for some purposes (eg registration of the mime type).
> By publishing this document, David Beckett and Tim Berners-Lee
> have made a formal submission to W3C for discussion. Publication
> of this document by W3C indicates no endorsement of its content
> by W3C, nor that W3C has, is, or will be allocating any
> resources to the issues addressed by it. This document is not
> the product of a chartered W3C group, but is published as
> potential input to the W3C Process. Please consult the complete
> list of acknowledged W3C Team Submissions.
>
> I note that the n3 submission is full of typos and other grammatical
> problems, including at least five in the "Status of This Document"
> section. The Turtle submission also has a typo in its "Status of This
> Document" section.
TimBL sometimes jokes that if he got the typos out of his work, no one
would believe he wrote it. (Although I don't think the SOTDs are from
him.)
If you've actually read through the documents, it'd be great if you'd
send along any constructive comments you have.
- s
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 14:32:09 UTC