W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2007

DAWG Agenda - 27 Nov 2007 @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:46:44 -0500
Message-ID: <474AF874.9090409@thefigtrees.net>
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Hi everyone,

We're meeting biweekly now, and we have a meeting tomorrow. Please 
attend if you can make it.

hope all is well,
Lee

0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 27 November 2007
at 14:30:00 UTC
          + LeeF chairing
          + teleconference bridge: tel:+1.617.761.6200 
tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152 code:7333
          + on irc at: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
          + Scribe: @@
          + Regrets:
          + roll call
          + minutes from last meeting [2][3]
          + Next meeting is 11 Dec 2007 (note: two weeks from now) @@ 
recruit scribe, regrets?
          + agenda comments?


1. Review ACTION Items

These actions appear DONE:

ACTION: LeeF mark reduced tests approve and update manifest with new way 
of indicating that a test uses reduced semantics
 
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/0071.html]
ACTION: LeeF to determine if any edits can be made between PR and Rec, 
or if all further edits become errata
   [short answer: yes, but very conservatively, see below]

Let's check on the status of the following actions:

ACTION: LeeF to solicit implementation results from reduced tests


2. REDUCED tests

At our last meeting we approved tests for REDUCED. I've marked the tests 
REDUCED and will mail them out to implementors shortly:

See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/0071.html

Does anyone have an objection to the manifest vocabulary suggested in 
the above link?


3. text/rdf+n3

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Nov/0008.html

Sean Palmer objects to the use of the unregistered text/rdf+n3 media 
type in an example in the protocol spec. Eric P. has some thoughts about 
how to best handle this.


4. Other editorial changes during PR?

We're allowed to make editorial changes during PR but are encouraged to 
do so very conservatively. Do the editors have any changes they would 
like to make during PR? If so, I'd like the group to take a look at them.


5. Implementation report going forward

I'd like to keep it updated for at least the coming few months, but this 
needn't take Working Group time. Is anyone else interested in helping 
keep the implementation report up-to-date and improving its quality?


6. Testimonials

A reminder to begin gathering SPARQL testimonials. We've received a 
couple so far.



[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-dawg-minutes.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/att-0069/13-dawg-minutes.html
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 16:46:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:37 GMT