- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:35:40 +0100
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
The items from my review that I wasn't completely sure of after the face to face were: (a) The inclusion of slotted terms. We never did discuss why those are still in there (even if they are "for free" :-)) (b) rif:subClassOf (##). I know we agreed to keep rif:type (#) for now and we previously agreed to put ## in the draft with a framing discussion but I'm not clear on whether we are still going to have that framing discussion. (c) rif:text. I don't think there was any disagreement with it that needs discussion, it will just be a thing to check before publication. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England Chris Welty wrote: > > > A small clarification: > > There were a number of reviews of the BLD draft posted to the list > (which is very good). Michael, Harold, and Jos did an excellent job > sorting through and addressing them, but it is inevitable that something > inadvertently "falls through the cracks". If you posted a review, now > is the time to check if your comments have been adequately addressed. > This section of the next telecon agenda will be reserved for such > discussion. > > -Chris > > Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: >> >> All, >> >> If you have any remaining issue with the BLD draft that you want the >> WG to discuss before publication, please, tell us before Friday night >> (Oct. 5), so we can add them on the agenda for the next telecon. >> >> Repeat: issues that you think the WG should discuss before >> publication. Most editorial comments do not qualify, probably... >> >> This is in addition to circulating on the mailing list your >> reviews/comments to the editors, of course. >> >> CC&S >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 17:36:09 UTC