Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week

Sandro,

In general, the WG has seemed willing to follow the advice of AndyS and 
EricP with respect to this issue, as they've been the most swapped in on 
it. If Andy and Eric are able to review the text between now and Tuesday 
and are satisfied with it, I'm confident that the WG will be satisfied 
as well. We'll have no problem allocating teleconference time on Tuesday 
for the discussion.

If Andy or Eric can't review by Tuesday or feel that the current 
approach needs further changes, I'm also happy to try to resolve on our 
mailing list before the end of this week, but I'd like at least a day or 
two in "mailing list time" for others to be able to chime in. (In 
particular, Steve Harris and myself have been swapped in on this at times.)

Lee

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Do you think SPARQL-WG can confirm this week that the current text of
> rdf:PlainLiteral
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral
> 
> is satisfactory?  The introduction and section 4, as well as the title
> and abstract have been entirely re-written in response to your LC
> comment.  The new text is less than a page, though, and should be easy
> to review.  My sense from discussions on the public-rdf-text mailing
> list is that the current text is *probably* acceptable to everyone
> (while not yet perfect, I'm sure).
> 
> If it's not approved this week, it probably means a lot more work for
> several people (like me), since it will probably get out of sync with
> the other OWL documents.  (Depending on the scheduling of the transition
> meeting, which is not yet determined, it might be possible to slip one
> more week and not get out of sync.)
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 01:37:44 UTC