RE: Agenda TC 05/08/2009

Question: Is it necessary to talk about the existing formal objections,
before moving to PR? Should we at least have some discussion about them at
the TC? Or only a reminder to all about what they are and what their current
state is? (For example, I do not even know precisely how many of them exist
at the moment. I think three: One by Creative Commons and two by TQ, but I
may well be wrong...)

Cheers,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Héctor Pérez-Urbina
>Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:23 PM
>To: OWL 1.1
>Subject: Agenda TC 05/08/2009
>
>Hello,
>
>This is a preliminary version of this week's teleconference:
>
>   1.  Admin
>          * Roll call
>          * Agenda amendments?
>          * PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (15 July)
>          * Action items status
>                o Pending Review Actions
>                      + Action 344 Clarity the description of datatype
>maps in Syntax and Conformance / Boris Motik
>                      + Action 347 Change the status on these 84 tests
>from Proposed to Approved, with a reference to the minutes / Michael
>Smith
>                      + Action 348 Ask owlapi devs about species
>validation / Ian Horrocks
>                o Due and overdue Actions
>                      + Action 331 About 1 month out to do
>accessibility audit / Bijan Parsia
>                      + Action 345 Push along the accessibility audit
>of our documents / Ian Horrocks
>                      + Action 346 Ping Bijan or somebody else for
>solution to ACTION-331 (accessibility audit) / Ian Horrocks
>   2. Issues/comments
>          * Holger Knublauch's LC Comment -- request for OWL 2
>vocabulary file
>          * Gioele Barabucci's LC Comment -- explain profile acronyms
>and relationship between profiles
>          * Jeff Heflin's LC Comment -- imports, deprication, profiles
>and arithmetic
>          * Dan Connolly's LC Comment -- MIME type registration
>          * Fix error in RDF-Based Semantics as per Michael Schneider's
>email
>          * Antoine Zimmermann's suggestion to add clarifying note(s)
>on asymmetric properties
>          * Michael Schneider's suggestion to modify OWL 2 RL/RDF rules
>          * Other issues?
>   3. Features "At-Risk"
>          * PROPOSED: implementation support for owl:rational has been
>adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer considered
>at-risk
>          * PROPOSED: implementation support for rdf:XMLLiteral
>support has been adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer
>considered at-risk
>   4. Advancing documents to Working Group Note and Proposed
>Recommendation status
>          * CR Exit Criteria and Implementation Report
>          * PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiteral is ready for publication as a
>Proposed Recommendation
>          * PROPOSED: Document Overview, Structural Specification and
>Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics,
>RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles, Primer, New Features and
>Rationale, Quick Reference Guide and XML Serialization are ready for
>publication as Proposed Recommendations
>   5. Implementation and Test Cases
>   6. Additional other business
>
>Regards,
>
>Héctor