- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:32:31 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 23-10-13 06:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I am uneasy with POSTPONING ISSUE-142. It is not as if the WG was > unable to do anything with respect to this issue. Instead the WG > decided to do very, very, very little with respect to this issue. That's the reason my proposal is to raise a new issue and postpone it. The new issue should say that the WG has discussed various options for a stronger semantics of datasets, but was unable to do so, and pointing to the relevant threads/notes/issues. In this way we archive where we left it, and thus make it easier for future groups to pick it up, if needed. > > I don't think that ISSUE-165 is suitable to be marked as AT-RISK. There > are no observable behavioural differences in RDF systems dependent on > this issue. Agreed. My suggestion would be to handle it at CR time, as it indeed does not affect tests. > > Handling editorial issues: At some time, the WG needs to decide that > adequate attention has been paid to an editorial issue. I suggest that > the WG officially close most of the long-open editorial issues, making > only the changes that have been determined up to now. Agreed; all or almost all can be closed. Guus > > peter > > > > On 10/22/2013 06:00 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: >> All, >> >> There is a draft agenda for tomorrow's telecon: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.23 >> >> The agenda gives suggestions for how to handle the open issues for >> Concepts, Semantics and the three syntax docs. Please >> comment/edit/add/... >> >> I'm still missing a draft PR request for JSON-LD. Hopefully we will be >> able to discuss/decide that as well. >> >> Please assume the telecon will be for 75 min, with a possibility to >> extend with 15 min. >> >> Guus >> >
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 07:32:59 UTC