- From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuilaranda@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:03:54 -0300
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
regrets too, also conflicting meeting :( sorry, Carlos On Tuesday 04 December 2012 08:22:34 Matthew Perry wrote: > Hi, > > I won't be able to make the TC today. I have a conflicting meeting. > > Thanks, > Matt > > On 12/4/2012 2:21 AM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Looking over the last two weeks' minutes, I think we have to talk about > > the following things: > > > > 1) review ACTIONs > > > > 2) decide a plan when to vote for PR/Rec, my impression is: > > Protocol: Exit criterion is met as per > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-20#resolution_3 --> > > Ready to vote for PR > > GSP: Exit criterion is met as per > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_3 --> > > Ready for PR > > Entailment: Exit criterion is met for all but RIF Entailment as per > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_2> > > --> 2 alternatives: > > a) we go to PR now and makr RIF Entailment as informative > > b) we give it another week or two, but define a clear roadmap > > what to be done when> > > (e.g. additional RIF test cases by next week ready for > > approval, passed by two engines by> > > in two weeks means we make RIF entailment normative, > > otherwise, we leave RIF entailment as informative) > > > > 3) As for the docs already in PR, I see not comments or issues that keep > > us from progressing to REC, but probably we want to go to REC with all > > docs at the same time. > > > > My goal would be to vote for PR for the missing docs either next week or > > in two weeks (also pending availability in two weeks, e.g. I am afraid, I > > am at risk already for 18th, os personally). > > > > Please let me know if I missed anything! > > > > best, > > Axel
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 14:04:37 UTC