- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: publication status, issues, preview drafts Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:38:54 -0400 [...] >> There were 4 At Risks in the 1st last call. Numbers 2 and 3 are >> resolved, leaving 1 and 4. I like leaving the numbering as is. > > That makes sense, but I think we should explain that in the SOTD. Maybe > a new subheading, like "Features At Risk". Which documents have At Risk > statements? Syntax, is the base one, with both AR#1 and AR#4. RDF-Based Semantics mentions AR#1. Profiles has its own AR - which mentions that there are two AR in Syntax. rdf:text has two separate AR - rtfn:compare and rtfn:length I think that is all. What text should go where? Perhaps There are two At-Risk features in this last call for OWL 2, both having to do with datatype support. The datatype owl:rational is at risk (At-Risk #1) and will be removed if there are not implementations that support it. The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral is at risk (At-Risk #4) in the functional syntax, and *may* be removed as a result of implementation experience. Comments during the previous last-call period resulted in the resolution of two previous at-risk features. >> It appears that all linking issues have been resolved in the Wiki >> documents, except maybe for NF&R and QRG. As far as I can tell *all* >> other documents are completely ready to go. Pushing the translation >> button today would help verify this. > > You're saying you want me to run another set, like yesterday's now? > > - Sandro If it is very easy, then yes, as we will then know that almost all documents are fine to publish. peter
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 14:54:02 UTC