W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [ALL] Raised Issues

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:34:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4D79C286.1080906@insa-lyon.fr>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 10/03/2011 21:58, David Wood a écrit :
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 15:02, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> On 10 Mar 2011, at 14:40, David Wood wrote:
>>> There are currently 8 raised issues under the "Cleanup tasks" product at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised
>>>
>>> We would like to move those issues to "open" status, unless someone objects.
>>
>> Process question: What's the consequence of someone objecting? And what's the commitment entailed by opening an issue?
>
>
> Sandro put this very well off-list, so I'll just quote him:
>
> [[
> The process I've seen is that the chairs mark at issue OPEN if (1) the
> topic is in scope, something that they believe does need to be discussed
> and decided in the course of the Group's work, and (2) there isn't an
> obvious consensus already, ie non-trivial discussion is going to be
> needed.
>
> Opening an issue is essential saying, "this is something we're going to
> be having on future agendas and discussing on the mailing list until we
> have a decision."   By saying that explicitly, it's lets people relax,
> knowing that at some point (before Last Call) it will be addressed.
> ]]
>
> I've since opened the "Cleanup tasks" issues, thus implicitly putting them on the agenda for future discussion.
>
> Please note that there are two other issues at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised
> which are both phrased as questions.  I've left those as they are until further discussion clarifies whether they should become open issues.  Apologies if that discussion has already occurred; I'm behind on email this week.

 > ISSUE-4: Do we depecate N-Triples and use Turtle instead?

Not necessary and I don't think it needs to be made an open issue.

 > ISSUE-5: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

I don't have an opinion yet on this question but considering that enough 
members of this WG support graph literals, it has to be made an open 
issue IMO.

>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Could you please take a few minutes to review them and discuss in this thread as needed?  Thanks.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 06:35:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC