Re: RIF WG Planning for 2009

This is all good, except that there is a clear interest and need in defining an
LP dialect. This dialect was marked as a "maybe" in the request for an
extension.

Our own use cases, the negative guards controversy, and implications from some
of the public comments on BLD all point in the direction of a strong demand for
such a dialect.

michael

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:17:44 -0500
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> At the June F2F we agreed on an extension plan: 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
> 
> I think we are pretty close to "on track" with this plan, though realistically 
> we can probably expect to get as far as CR by the end of the extension period 
> (May 30, 2009), not all the way to Rec, with our current drafts (UCR, Core, BLD, 
> FLD, RDF+OWL, DTB, PRD, Test, rdf:Text).  The group is progressing, though we 
> are all feeling the resources being stretched to their limit.
> 
> Here's what we're expecting 2009 to shape up to:
> 
> 1) Continue working on the RIF drafts.  Bring them all to LC in March and to CR 
> in May.
> 
> 2) Two more F2F meetings - F2F12 (Portland) & F2F13 (Europe?), with F2F13 being 
> sometime around April.
> 
> 3) We would not take on any new work, simply finish the existing drafts.
> 
> 4) Assuming we make at least LC by the end of the current extension, we would 
> request a further WG extension to shepherd the drafts through CR and PR.  This 
> extension would be for a reduced workload WG, with monthly (+ as needed) 
> telecons and no F2F meetings.  We'd expect to simply be responding to public 
> comments.
> 
> -CC&S
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 20:56:01 UTC