- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:29:41 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:06, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres >> Sent: 28 April 2009 09:37 >> To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' >> Subject: rdf:text review >> >> Dear all, >> >> I would like to encourage everybody who has comments on it to read >> Andy's rdf:text review, such that we can put it forward to OWL+RIF. >> >> Unless severe additional new comments or concerns come up, I'd >> like to >> propose to put it forward "as is" as official review of from the >> SPARQL >> WG to get the process of fixing the concerns going, ideally after >> today's telecon or at least after the F2F (in case we can't agree >> quickly today, we should have some discussion about it at the f2f). > > The text sent should have some proposals for changes to the > rdf:text (at least in outline) to address the issues raised because > some of these issues have been around for sometime now (Dec 2008). > The current draft reply has not got that far and certainly not to > WG consensus. See my other message for the beginning of this with > areas needing text changes. > > It would be good to have your comments on the material so far as > you are an editor of rdf:text so, hopefully, we can reduce the > number of cycles needed I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he was thinking that not much, if any changes were actually needed to rif:text. It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending comments. Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some point? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 09:25:55 UTC