- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:53:06 -0400
- To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote: > 2)RC-2 (you rersponded) also has still opposing voices from Richard http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html> I talked with Lee a bit last week about trying to talk to Richard a bit offline to see if we can discuss his concerns a bit more. I haven't gotten to that yet, but happy to do it. .greg > * Protocol: ready for PR/CR? > > Questions: a) do we have 2 full implementations? > b) pending resolution of RC-2 > c) PR vs. CR. pending discussion of Carlos' ACTION-672 cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0164.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0164.html> AFAIK we don't have 2 full implementations. That being said, I think the protocol tests have stabilized, so would love to see other implementation reports. > * Service Description: ready for PR/CR? > > Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR) We have 2 implementations. > * Federated Query: ready for PR/CR? > > Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR) We have 3 implementations. .greg
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:53:38 UTC