RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-03-08

Sorry, a number of quibbles and/or (mis)clarifications with the agenda.

>
> 7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
>

[ I have a few from the f2f ... ]
2002-02-25#1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0013.html
test001.rdf in the zip

2002-02-25#6
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0014.html

I had a few other actions that didn't get into the minutes.
(already done: formalize one node, two node IRI example; I thought I had an
action to produce the other test cases for not-id-and-resource. Not yet
done: xml-base issues below)
Never mind.

> 14: IRI's
>

Is this meant to be in response to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0059.html

If so, can I draw the WG's attention to the test case examples I posted in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0027.html

Do we think:
1: this is an RDF problem (i.e. present in the graph)
2: this is an XML problem (i.e. present in the XML serialization only)
3: this is not a problem (e.g. to be addressed, if at all, at the
application layer)




> 15: XML Base Test Cases
> Reviewing these needs to be complete
>
>
> See:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/att-0516/01-xmlba
se.zip

Excluding the error cases which have all been rejected.
I have two actions to reposit them as positive cases.
2002-02-25#16 replace xml:base error cases 1 and 2 with +ve test cases
[f2f stuff seems garbled:

IIRC I first had an action to replace 2 and 3 (which were easier decisions),
and then I had an action to review DanC's analysis of case 1, and if I
agreed to create a +ve case for error case 1.

Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 05:41:39 UTC