W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2004

[ALL,XSCH] next steps on datatypes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:22:01 +0000
Message-ID: <41C1B629.6050600@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Summary: proposal to seek input from other WGs on datatypes editors' draft.

I'm hoping that at today's meeting:
- that we will be quorate
- that we can agree the next steps with the editors' draft:


In particular, if we can manage to agree a timetable in which we can 
inform other WGs of the existence of this draft, and our intention in 
principle to publish it early next year. We had hoped to do so before 
Christmas, giving the other WGs the choice of either reviewing before 
publication or after.

This can be achieved if:
a) the TF is happy to ask the WG to further review the draft
b) we either
     b.i) do SWBPD WG review in parallel with reviews from other WGs
     b.ii) assign a couple of reviewers to report back early next week, 
and pending their approval, give me an action to contact the other WGs 
on the 23rd say (or perhaps contact them tomorrow, indicating that a 
draft updated with comments from SWBPD reviewers will be ready for 23rd)

The other WGs I have in mind are:
   - XML Schema
   - XQuery
   - XSLT
   - DAWG
   - former partipants of RDF Core and WebOnt
      (including Patel-Schneider and ter Horst, both of whom work for 
former members rather than current members)

Possible draft text along the lines of (needs change for RDF Core and 
WebOnt, since they are defunct)
Dear @@@@ WG

the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG have an editors' draft 
on using XML Schema Datatypes in the Semantic Web. We are hoping to 
publish this in the new year, and wanted to give other W3C WGs with a 
direct interest in this work a chance to informally review before 
If you wish to do so, please can you get initial comments to us by
25th January, or if that is too tight, an indication of when you would 
like to comment by. Comments from WG participants as well as agreed 
consensus comments are welcome, but please distinguish the two.
We will be seeking a formal WG review after publication.


Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 16:22:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:03 UTC