danbri: Agenda coming together... I've listed people whose talk offers I've ack'd (though suspect I missed a couple).
larsbot: The SWBPD WG has published a draft survey of TM/RDF interoperability proposals
DanC: it's a draft to the WG, not from the WG, no?
larsbot: You probably know how this works better than I do
DanC: see a few notes I made earlier
DanC: it's a draft to the WG, not from the WG, no?
larsbot: You probably know how this works better than I do
DanC: see a few notes I made earlier
DanC: Editor's Draft 24 February 2005
DanC: "RDF only allows a single identifier." should be "single type of identifier"?
DanC: "the current version of ISO 13250 does not allow this but the revised version will." begs for a pointer to "the revised version" or some schedule for it
DanC: 2.3 Test Cases. yum yum!
DanC: the organization of this document is very nice. Chronological introduction of the approaches reviewed, etc.
DanC: I have only managed to read sections 1 and 2, though
bandri: Re draft 'to' the WG, I wonder if W3C might not benefit from a common stylesheet for these 'editors drafts'; they're common now, and often public, and sometimes confuse people.
DanC: "RDF only allows a single identifier." should be "single type of identifier"?
DanC: "the current version of ISO 13250 does not allow this but the revised version will." begs for a pointer to "the revised version" or some schedule for it
DanC: 2.3 Test Cases. yum yum!
DanC: the organization of this document is very nice. Chronological introduction of the approaches reviewed, etc.
DanC: I have only managed to read sections 1 and 2, though
bandri: Re draft 'to' the WG, I wonder if W3C might not benefit from a common stylesheet for these 'editors drafts'; they're common now, and often public, and sometimes confuse people.