Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-25 for review

Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-25 for review

RDF Data Access WG telcon
2004-05-25 14:30 UTC

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0447.html

IRC log
not currently available online. attached.


AGENDUM: 1. Convene, take roll, review record, agenda

Present: Dan Connolly, Howard Katz, Kevin Wilkinson, Janne Saarela, Andy
Seaborne, Kendall  Clark, Yoshio Fukushige, Daniel Krech, Farrukh Najmi,
Jean-Francois Baget, Eric  Prud'hommeaux, Tim Berners-Lee, Bryan Thompson

Next meeting: 2004-06-01 15:30 UTC
scribe: [HOWARD: somebody volunteered for this. Who?]


Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-11 for review
From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:42:21 +0100
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0385.html

as amended 12 May 2004 16:39:14 -0500 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0386.html

[ACCEPTED as a true record of our last meeting]


ACTION DanC: inform the TAG of the conflict between sec13.9 of the HTTP
spec and TAG's recommendation on issue 7

[DONE, pointer not yet available due to problems with the archive]


AGENDUM: 2. Use Cases & Requirements Draft
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
  v 1.89++

ACTION AndyS, DanielK, BryanT: Review UseCases as of 2004-05-14
preparing to report to the DAWG at 2004-05-25 telcon.

Andy:
"I would be happy to publish this version[1.74] as our working document."
[1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0414.html
Bryan:
"Excellent work!  I would vote to release this version (per-or post any
editorial changes based on final comments) as our first working draft." [2]
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0461.htm

DanC: we seem to have lots of support for publishing
Kendall: doc has been stable for a week, in good shape quality-wise
DanC: Bryan's review [2] was thorough

Bryan: I would vote this document up
Kendall: title has been changed as per DanC's request
EricP: is available through Saturday to handle publishing mechanics
Kendall: proposes finishing by Thursday
EricP: regrets for June 1
DanC: will try to finish by 31may but no bets, CVS still having difficulties

PROPOSED to publish
  "DAWG Use Cases and Requirements"
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
  as a W3C Working Draft
  (after light editorial fixes agreed by Kendal
  and DanC|EricP such as spelling out DAWG in
  the title, plus elaborated
  Status Of This Document and any other changes
  required by W3C publishing rules).

Kendall: title has been changed

[RESOLVED: to publish]

Yoshio: will discussion continue on document issues after publication?
DanC: certainly. best way to initiate discussion is to submit proposed text.
DanC: primary purpose of this version is to invite outside feedback. Those
with substantive  suggestions are invited to join the wg. we'll need to get
more careful on last call.

DanC: who's subscribed to the comments list?
EricP: currently just Kendall
DanC: we're obliged to respond to comments. If substantive, the entire wg
should discuss  them.
Kendall: if comments are minor, I'll handle them, otherwise pass them on the
group
DanC: be polite to commenters. Say thank you!
DanC: people are invited to subscribe, but it's not required.
EricP: confirms that people can subscribe by mailing
public-rdf-dawg-comments-request w/  Subject: subscribe

AGENDUM: 3. Additional Use Cases

Kendall: queries what to do with Nick Gibbons new uc
DanC: let's take up after publication of the uc doc

ACTION DaveB: write up this educational metadata UC
[continues]

ACTION: Kendall: consider the larger comments from Brian and Yoshio
post-publication

AGENDUM: 4. Requirements

[NOTA: <Zakim> says 'agendum 4. "Requirements" taken up [from DanC_]"'
HOWARD doesn't know what this means]

AGENDUM: Have any proposals achieved consensus recently?

Andy felt Human Readable Syntax had done so
DanC requested deferral as one main proponent not present

AGENDUM: Refine requirements by evaluating designs?

DanC called for volunteers. should require 1-2 weeks, you should not be an
author of the design you review. Three at bats:

ACTION: AndyS to review SeRQL
ACTION: Bryan Thompson to review joseki
ACTION: EricP to review RDQL

Kendall: recently spammed language survey can be borrowed from

AGENDUM: 5. Test materials

ACTION SteveH: to draft and maintain a list of test sketch cases,
including x < y, x < 18.
[some progress made; continues]

AndyS: happy we are publishing!
Kendall: yes

Adjourned

Next meeting 2004-06-01 14:30 UTC