Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2012-05-22 telcon 1600 UTC

* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> [2012-05-22 06:51+0200]
> Ashok et al,
> 
> Just an information on the official steps that have to be taken for the PR and Rec transitions. This may be helpful in scheduling.
> 
> 1. The WG has to have a recorded vote on transition to PR (hopefully o  this meeting)
> 2. All the documents have to be final. And I mean _final_, no change any more.
> 3. A transition request have to be sent to chairs and others; see [1] for a recent pattern.
> 4. A transition call should occur, no less than one week before item 3 above, with the participation of the chairs, the domain lead (ie, Thomas), the (representative) of the director (I would expect Ralph in this case), the staff contact(s). Editors of the document are welcome to join the meeting.
> 5. Publication of the PR, to be synchronized with the communication team, too, because they prepare the official review forms; formally, this is preceded by an official publication request to the webmaster.
> 6. The review period is, minimally, 4 weeks.
> 7. Unless a formal objection comes during review, the director's approval to move to Rec is a matter of a mail, no call is required
> 8. Publication of the Rec.
> 9. Everybody opens a bottle of champaign (this step is optional)
> 
> Clearly, scheduling step 4 is always complicated, and should be done as soon as the date of step 3 is known. Once this schedule is set, scheduling the publication with the webmaster should occur asap.
> 
> With some of us traveling (I travel to France on Thursday and also to SemTech Saturday a week), some vacations (Monday is Pinkster, ie, holiday in most of the European countries at least) it will be tight to get a PR out of the door by SemTech. It is not impossible, but if it does not work, no drama.
> 
> Eric, anything I forgot?

just a minor one:
R2RML may be able to go to PR but DM would have to go back to LC per the changes to the DM in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Apr/0070>


> I hope this helps
> 
> Ivan
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012AprJun/0045.html
> 
> 
> ---
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
> 
> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 May 2012, at 19:36, ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > AGENDA Teleconference
> > W3C RDB2RDF Working Group telephone conference 2012-05-22
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > *16:00-17:00 UTC*
> > Local time:
> > 
> > 
> > http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=05&day=01&year=2012&hour=16&min=00&sec=0
> > 
> > 
> > Bridge US: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)
> > Conference code: 7322733# (spells "RDB2RDF")
> > IRC channel : #RDB2RDF on irc.w3.org:6665 W3C
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Chair: Michael
> > Scribe: ?
> > 
> > We have only one remaining issue and we need to close that tomorrow.  Please read the mail
> > on this issue and be prepared to discuss.
> > 
> > 1. Admin
> > PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2012/05/15-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
> > 
> > 2. Implementability for tables w/o primary key
> > Proposal: On the May 15 telcon the WG seemed to agree that we did not need to add any functionality
> > to R2RML but, instead we needed to add wording to document the differences between DM and R2RML
> > in the case of mapping RDB tables and views without primary keys.  Richard's proposal below seemed
> > to get consensus in the email thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0110.html
> > 
> > 3.  If we get closure on the above issue, discussion about publication.
> > Process: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0069.html
> > 
> > 4. AOB
> > -- 
> > All the best, Ashok
> > 
> 

-- 
-ericP

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 05:51:45 UTC