Re: [Telecon] Call for agenda items: BLD issues

rif:text is already there.

> 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 19:49:15 UTC