- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:59:35 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
With threads going back to July 2005, the LC status was getting unmanageable. That's one of the signs that another last call is in order. Fortunately, we have done that 2nd last call on all our documents now. So I updated the Makefile to show LCSTART=2006-01-25 and now we have: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/lc-status-report.html v1.68: 7 closed, 3 pending, and 2 open Oops... the Marsh comment isn't being tracked right because its subject starts with Re. No matter; I put it on the agenda anyway. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/weekly-agenda I saved an archival copy at v1.66... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Mar/att-0022/lc-status-report.html__charset_us-ascii 56 closed, 63 pending (Hoehrmann, Baker, Berners-Lee, Srinivasan, Klyne, Barstow/nokia, Levering, Patel-Schneider, Malhotra/XQuery/XSL, Dubost, Wood, Davies, Haas, Marsh, Jones, Dodds, Sauermann, Roessler), and 21 open (Horrocks, Patel-Schneider, ter Horst, Patel-Schneider, Baker, Zemke/Oracle, Carroll, Mikhailov) Dubost told me in the hallway in France that we've addressed his comments to his satsifaction. I/we should probably write to the other folks with open or pending comments on the 1st last call and let them know that we're not tracking them any more; that they need to re-raise if the problem is still there in the 2nd LC docs. (EricP, can you ping Roessler and Berners-Lee and Haas or close those threads on their behalf?) Hmm... the director is likely to ask, for those pending threads, in which cases the WG basically made the requested changes and in which cases the WG did not. I try not to formalize that info unless I really, really have to. I might have to. hmm. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 23:59:44 UTC