Difference between revisions of "MaterialForCRTransitionCall"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Specifications)
(Comments from Other Groups)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
* Semantic Web Coordination Group
 
* Semantic Web Coordination Group
 
* RDFa Working Group
 
* RDFa Working Group
 +
** Listed in the RDFa 1.1. context http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html
 
* Internationalization Activity
 
* Internationalization Activity
 +
** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2012JulSep/0081.html
 +
** Review requested see activity radar: http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Review_radar
 +
* MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group
 +
* Oil and Gas Business Group
 
* RDF Working Group
 
* RDF Working Group
 
** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html
 
** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html
 
* DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group
 
* DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group
 
** A DCMI member is also member of PROV WG and co-editor of http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/Overview.html
 
** A DCMI member is also member of PROV WG and co-editor of http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/Overview.html
 +
 +
A review was requested specifically from the following groups: Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDFa Working Group, Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDF Working Group,  MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group, Oil and Gas Business Group, DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group and the Internationalization Activity.
 +
 +
The RDF working group approved our approach and will use provenance examples in their specification (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html). The RDFa WG included PROV in their default context. The Internationalization Activity was notified (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2012JulSep/0081.html) and have not received a response although we were listed on the Activity's review radar (http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Review_radar). We have had close collaboration with DCMI creating a note on mappings of Dublin Core to the PROV.
  
 
== Changes since LC==
 
== Changes since LC==

Revision as of 14:48, 22 November 2012

Material For CR Transition Call

Specifications

Public Comments to LC

Comments from Other Groups

A review was requested specifically from the following groups: Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDFa Working Group, Semantic Web Coordination Group, RDF Working Group, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group, Oil and Gas Business Group, DCMI Metadata Provenance Task Group and the Internationalization Activity.

The RDF working group approved our approach and will use provenance examples in their specification (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0208.html). The RDFa WG included PROV in their default context. The Internationalization Activity was notified (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2012JulSep/0081.html) and have not received a response although we were listed on the Activity's review radar (http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Review_radar). We have had close collaboration with DCMI creating a note on mappings of Dublin Core to the PROV.

Changes since LC

Exit Criteria

Others

Patent dislosures

No patent disclosures:

https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/46974/exclude