- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:11:28 -0400
- To: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
On 03/23/2011 09:49 PM, Nathan wrote: > can we add this to the agenda for tomorrow? Sure, let's cover it first thing. We'll need to review it to make sure we can enter a 2nd LC... as well as ISSUE-72 (we don't have a formal response for that yet, but probably don't need one since it was created by the group). > RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> ISSUE-87 (LC2 - Mischa Tuffield): IRIs vs URI References [2nd LC >> Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/87 >> >> Raised by: Manu Sporny >> On product: 2nd LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1 >> >> Mischa Tuffield has asked us to make sure that the terminology used in >> the RDFa Core 1.1 specification matches that used in the other >> Semantic Web documents (like SPARQL, RDF and the soon-to-be TURTLE >> specification): >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Mar/0066.html -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Payment Standards and Competition http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/02/28/payment-standards/
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:12:00 UTC