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

Re: weekly call for agenda items

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 23:13:38 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020605231329.02c042e0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Thinking about telecon *and* f2f:

My feeling about the upcoming f2f is that we should try and focus on 
decisions needed to close down the current WG...  might it be useful to try 
and identify and prioritize agenda (for telecon and f2f) to that end?

And would it make sense to use some telecon time to try and line up some 
agenda for the f2f that would move us toward closure?

(I'm thinking that if we can truly resolve most of the details by end of 
f2f, any remaining energy can be focused on working out the (hopefully) 
very few issues that remain.)

#g
--

At 02:02 PM 6/5/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Per last week's teleconference
>- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html
>
>[[
>4: Next telecon?
>Next Friday, 2002-06-07 to be chaired by Eric
>]]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/att-0159/01-2002-05-31-irc.txt
>
>This is a call for agenda items for this week RDF Core teleconference.
>Suggested agenda for consideration should must be submitted by Thursday
>noon, ET time. Please note, Friday's agenda may be a little late, I
>expect to get this out early afternoon Thursday ET.
>
>
>My current list of possible agenda items include the following:
>
>- Definition of graph syntax
>
>Discuss Jeremy's proposal.
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0120.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0122.html
>
>
>- Issue: rdfms-assertion
>
>2002-05-17#7  DaveB  Investigate recent TAG decision on registering
>mime types for W3C specifications and make a recommendation to the WG
>
>Also consideration of Tim's recent response and ensuing thread.
>
>See:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0126.html
>
>
>- Approve test cases
>
>Propose approve test cases reviewed by Aaron and Graham
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0125.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0144.html
>
>
>- Issue: xml:base
>
>Feedback from the URI group - thread starting
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0025.html
>
>See:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0025.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0060.html
>
>(note: may be at risk since Brian will not be availiable)
>
>- Also for consideration:
>
>issue faq-html-compliance (DaveB has an action on this one.)
>
>issue rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics (Danbri has an action on this one.)
>
>
>
>--
>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/

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 18:01:16 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:10 EDT