- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:40:39 +0200
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:23 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > Yeah, I guess.... My hesitation is that I think abstracts should > be talking about the spec, not making claims about the world, such as > how often and how well these transforms simplify things -- claims > someone could potentially disagree with. > > But I'm really nitpicking; it's okay. > > And everything else, below, is fine. Great. > So it's just the idlharness thing now? Yeah.. The only other thing I'm aware of is the link to the test suite. Currently it points to http://json-ld.org/test-suite/. Shall I change that to http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-tests/ as we've discussed? I just checked. It's not setup yet. > You might try generating some WDs now, and seeing how they fare on > pubrules. I will do that tomorrow. What date shall I use? April 11? In last week's telecon we didn't really discuss whether we plan to skip CR, shall I add a sentence like (adapted from SPARQL): The Working Group welcomes reports of implementations, sent to the comments address. If we gather sufficient evidence of interoperable implementations, the group may request to skip Call for Implementations (Candidate Recommendation) drafts and have the next round of publications be Proposed Recommendations. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 20:41:18 UTC