- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:48:55 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
ACTION-154: Sandro to work with birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3. Can this be closed re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0624.html ? Can be closed from my point of view. Sandro and I exchanged specs of the teleconf systems and they have compatible modes. Birte 2009/12/22 Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>: > Below is a summary of the open actions we currently have. We might not want to go through all actions in the TC > today to not loose time on the draft discussion, so I just start with those actions which can be probably closed: > > CAN BE CLOSED? > ============== > > ACTION-134: Steve and Andy to figure out what happens with SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank) > I'd suggest to close ACTION-134 referring to > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0539.html > probably convert it into an issue? > > ACTION-135: Steve to summarize Query security issues in security section once document has been merged > I'd suggest to close ACTION-135 re: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#security > Shall we task Steve to link issue-19 from there? > > ACTION-136: Axel to ask Paul to look at security section in Update document > I'd suggest to close ACTION-136 re: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#sec_security > Shall we task Paul to link issue-19 from there? > > ACTION-144: Paul to start conversation in an email about uses cases for INSERT / DELETE > can be closed? > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0551.html > > ACTION-154: Sandro to work with birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3. > Can this be closed re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0624.html ? > > LEFT OPEN: > ========== > > I would leave the following actions open for the moment, not having enough information about them, > if anyone thinks different, let me know: > > ACTION-70: open > ACTION-77: open > ACTION-116: open. Does the note on RESTful-ness in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ > discharge this action? > ACTION-126: open > ACTION-130: open > ACTION-131: open > ACTION-132: open > ACTION-146: open, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0628.html > Paul, do you suggest to close issue-20? I would still like to draft some examples on that involving empty graphs. > ACTION-150: open > ACTION-152, ACTION-150, ACTION-149, ACTION-148: although some mails have been sent, I suggest that these should > all be put consistently in a separate subsection "Changelog" under the "Status" section and thus leave them open. > > > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 11:49:27 UTC