Re: FYI: Transition Request for RDF 1.1 Concepts, Semantics, TriG, N-Triples & N-Quads to CR

Hello Guus!

Thanks for letting me know.

As you write, I am fine with having my issue 165 (datatype maps) treated 
during CR.

Concerning issue-166, I am in the process of writing a reply to to the 
WG's answer and hope to be able to send it today already, or during the 
weekend at latest.


Am 25.10.2013 00:18, schrieb Guus Schreiber:
> Jeremy, David, Michael, (cc: public-rdf-comments)
> This is to let you know that we have asked for transition to CR of the
> documents you commented upon. The details w.r.t. the disposition of
> comments are in this section:
> * We left two issues open, 148 (IRIs as globals)  and 165 (datatype
> map), as the commenter (David resp. Michael) agreed we could handle
> these during CR.
> * We closed two editorial issues (145 and 166) for which we sent a
> detailed response but for which we haven't heard whether the response is
> satisfactory. It should be no problem to take case of loose ends. if
> any, during CR.
> * We closed issue 142 without making a change, to which Jeremy Carroll
> formally objected. We included a link to the objection in the CR
> request, plus a link to Issue-167 (Stronger Semantics of datasets?)
> raised by the WG in response to the objection and subsequently postponed
> by the WG.
> FYI.
> Thanks again for your feedback!
> Guus

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 06:04:11 UTC