W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-08-02 (rdf doc, datatypes)

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: 01 Aug 2002 21:32:48 -0400
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1028251969.28000.26501.camel@birch>

Time:
10:00:00 Fri Aug 2 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Aug 2 2002 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

1: Volunteer scribe

2: Roll Call

3: Review Agenda

4: Next telecon Aug 9 2002

5: Review minutes of 2002-07-26 teleconference 

hmm.... no minutes seem to be available but I find

http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-actions

6: Status of Action Items

Proposed Closed Items

ACTION: ericm 
Chase minutes of last telecon
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-09-09

Propose http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc is accepted as the
official minutes

ACTION: gk 
release new doc on Tuesday
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-58-22

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0177.html

ACTION: jjc 
to produce test cases to reflect decision re nodeID
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-08

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0187.html

ACTION: jjc 
update test case in light of rdf:ID decision
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-23-10

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0187.html

ACTION: ericm 
Solicit reviews re gk's new document 
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-53

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0006.html


Open Items

ACTION: 2002-05-31#4 bwm
add "see also" links between rdfms-containers other approaches and
rdfms-seq-representation in the issues list document

ACTION: danbri to circulate LBase document before Wednesday
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-10-46

ACTION: jang 
update test cases in light of bugs</dd>
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-34-20

ACTION: eric
Look into why jang gets dropped on rdf-comments list and fix problem
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-35-21

ACTION: bwm 
to identify applications needed and get a schedule for them
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-54-10

ACTION: bwm
have a good holiday
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-20

ACTION: daveb 
update syntax in light of rdf:ID decision
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-23-41

ACTION: daveb
update syntax doc to reflect decision re nodeID
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-04

ACTION: daveB 
to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:nodeID
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-52

ACTION ericm 
Review gk's new document
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-00-48

ACTION: danbri 
Review gk's new document
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-01-24

ACTION: jos 
Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3)
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-02

ACTION: danbri
Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3)
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-13

ACTION: frank 
Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3)
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-04-03


7) New Document 

A new draft of 'Resource Description Framework (RDF): Overview and
Abstract Data Model' is now availiable

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0177.html

Last week we had people sign up to review this, I'd like to vote on a go
for first working draft.

8) Datatypes

This is the bottleneck that is keeping us from completing our work; I'd
like to spend the majority of time on this call to figure this out.

Some ready-reference notes/context:

a) 

My analysis digging through the working group and interest group posts
on this issue is right in line with Graham's

[[
Looking at the various responses to the survey, it seems to me that
there 
isn't a clear community consensus about what is desired or 
needed.
]] -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0002.html

More to the point, I think Graham further summed up my views beter than
I could articulate these ...

[[
Following the lead of others [1,2] I'm thinking it's time to 
reduce the problem to something we can agree on.

Agreeing with Jeremy, I think nobody has problems with the local typing 
idiom.  Maybe the global datatyping idiom, however seductive, is just a
Bad 
Idea?  I'm ready to throw in the towel on that bit.  I think it's better
not to try and specify it than to specify it badly.

#g
--

[1] Jeremy's messages:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0170.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0185.html
(latter part, what is URI for "Valentines day MT"?)

[2] Guha's message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0199.html
]] 
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0002.html


b)

Patrick has sent regrets, but has a clear position on this - 

[[
If there is a vote regarding tidy/untidy literals this Friday, please
accept this as my vote in favor of unitidy literals and against tidy
literals.
]] 
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0001.html

c)

Interesting thread from danbri

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0003.html


------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda *really wanted to be* produced by Jema, the Jena WG
assistant

-- 
eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 21:33:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:23 EDT