W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: RDFCore Telecon Agenda 2001-06-29

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:36:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3B3B4EE7.92B57194@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> Time:
>    10:00:00 Fri Jun 29 2001 in America/New_York


This meeting looks so well-prepared that I'll probably
attend to my other commitment at that time. Please
accept my regrets.

I hereby second the following proposals...


>  which according to:
> 
>    http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
> 
>  converts to:
> 
>    15:00:00 Fri Jun 29 2001 in Europe/London
>    23:00:00 Fri Jun 29 2001 in Asia/Tokyo
> 
>  Phone Number: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003
> 
>  irc: irc.openprojects.net #rdfcore
> 
> WELCOME, ROLL CALL, SCRIBE
> 
> REVIEW AGENDA
> 
> REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING on 15th June 2001
> 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/att-0471/01-Minutes-20010615.txt
> 
>  with the correction that action JUN-01-01-#1 was closed as per
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0477.html

I accept that as a true record.

> REVIEW MINUTES OF TELECON on 22nd June 2001
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0422.html
> 
> with the correction that only Brian should be shown as chair as per
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0423.html
> 
> and action JUN-01-01-#1 was closed in the previous meeting as per
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0477.html
> 
> and action A4 was closed and discussion of the issue
> #rdfms-reification-required was postponed.

Looks good.


> CONFIRM FOLLOWING ACTIONS COMPLETED (1 min)
> 
> ACTION: 2001-06-22#6: DanBri: start activating issues on RDFS
> 
> REVIEW STATUS OF FOLLOWING ACTIONS (5 min)
> 
> ACTION: JUN-01-01-#9: Ora: send a note to the WG that describes
>    how aboutEach is being used and how it was implemented
> 
> ACTION: 2001-06-22#2: Brian: Write a draft on what issues are in scope,
>         how are they allocated to partitions, what are the dependencies.
> 
> ACTION: 2001-06-22#3: All: Post issue priorities with reasons

Hmm... I suppose I owe something here. Apologies; no progress.


> ACTION: 2001-06-22#4: Sergey: Summarize priorities that are posted
> 
> ACTION: 2001-06-22#5: DanBri: Get a draft of RDFSchema to the group.
> 
> ACTION: 2001-06-22#7: Brian: Do a writeup of the containers proposal.
> 
> ACTION  2001-06-08#2: Dan Brickley: write up decision to allow partial
>                       descriptions of containers up in more detail for the
>                       list
> 
> ISSUE  rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity, rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
>        Brian McBride (10 mins)
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
> 
> Resolve that the container specific productions (M&S Section 6, productions
> 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed from the grammar.
> 
> Resolve that rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements
> when they are found matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a
> a typedNode (production 6.13).
> 
> This change is made because:
> 
>  o the container specific productions in the grammar are redundant and
>    add nothing to the language.
> 
>  o The container specific productions fail to recognise subclasses of
>    container.
> 
>  o The current specification is unclear about how to process rdf:li
>    elements which are not propertyElt's recognised within a container
>    specific  production.
> 
> An advantage of the decision is that rdf:li elements can be used to
> number members of sub-classes of containers.
> 
> There are test cases in:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
> 
> This closes these issues.

Seconded.


> ISSUE rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about Aaron Swartz (10 mins)
> 
> Consider Aaron's resulution in:
> http://www.blogspace.com/rdf/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/

Seconded. (I'm in support of any proposed improvements
to the wording that are acceptable
to Aaron and the chair.)

> ISSUE rdfms-aboutEach-on-object Steve (10 minutes)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-aboutEach-on-object
> 
> Consider Steve's summary in:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0386.html
> 
> Decide whether to accept Steve's recommendation to disallow aboutEach
> on objects.

seconded.


> ISSUE rdfms-xml-base Owner Jan Grant (10 mins)
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base
> 
> Discuss Jan's proposal in:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0340.html

Hmm... I'm not sure I can support this one.
I'll try to say why in reply to that message...
if you don't hear futher from me, I abstain on this one.

> Next meeting - 10am Boston time, 6th July 2001.  Is this feasible,
> given the 4th July Holiday?
> 
> AOB (5 mins)
> 
> CLOSE

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 11:36:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:18 EDT