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

Minutes: telecon 2002-11-15

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:11:53 +0000 (GMT)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211181134020.22577-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0425.html

Transcript:
	http://www.w3.org/2002/11/15-rdfcore-irc

Scribes
	This week: jang/em
	Next week: jang

Roll call:
   Dave Beckett
   Dan Brickley
   Jeremy Carroll
   Jos De Roo
   Jan Grant (.5 scribe)
   Frank Manola
   Brian McBride (chair)
   Eric Miller (.5 scribe)
   Steve Petschulat
   Aaron Swartz

Regrets:
   Mike Dean, Patrick Stickler, Graham Klyne (although GK was present on
   IRC), Dan Connolly


Review agenda:
   Eric tabled AOB on editorial process (pick up html corrections from
   the published documents)

   During the telecon the question of implementations required was
   raised and tabled for AOB, but not addressed [for next meeting?]


Next telecon:
   22 Nov 2002, 10am Boston time


Minutes of last telecon:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0230.html


Confirm status of completed actions:
   All done


Reflect on 6 WD's published
   (a moment's pause)


Confirm status of withdrawn actions:
   ACTION: 2002-11-01#5 danbri - review schema section of primer
   Frank M asked that this _not_ be withdrawn. Danbri agreed.


Item 9: Encouraging Review and Feedback on latest WD's
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0417.html

   It was generally agreed that feedback from WebOnt should be sought -
   in particular, that individuals should be targetted as likely and
   useful reviewers.

ACTION 2002-11-15#1 (bwm) Figure out which bits of which documents you
	need to read to review datatypes.
ACTION 2002-11-15#2 (jjc) Ping PFPS to request a review of DTs & MT.


Item 10: a namespace for XMLLiteral
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0204.html

   Various small pros and cons were discussed.
DECIDED: (3 abs, 0 against) to move XMLLiteral to RDF namespace.
   As requested by Danbri, we record for the minutes that this decision
   is not taken lightly.


Item 11: Document overlap and content transfers
(also, Item 12: Primer was included in this discussion)
2002-11-01#3  frankm  Discuss overlap between primer & concepts with
	concepts editors

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0422.html
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0424.html

   There are two schools of thought on the primer: keep it a thin
   "hacker's guide" (paraphrasing DanC); keep it a place for discursive
   and explanatory text (bwm, frankm).

   Eric, FrankM indicated if they had to do it around again they'd
   probably do it the same way. Leave it to others to produce "fastpath"
   documents from the larger primer.


Item 17: Test cases (taken out of order due to jang having to leave early)

ACTION 2002-11-15#3 (jang) produce DT test cases for this Friday
	telecon.


Item 13: Concepts Doc

   Moving concepts document (pieces thereof) to the primer:
   Section 2.1, 2.2 remain where they are.
   (Editorial discussion of remaining issues with concepts: clarifying
   informative sections; IRI - TAG decision awaited)


Item 14: Syntax

   The proposal to move examples from teh sytax document to the primer
   was DROPPED since the two documents took different approaches
   (resp, starting with the XML striping vs. the graph) to describing
   RDF/XML syntax.


Item 15: Schema

   Danbri: Cross-references to MT, Primer needed.
   Eric volunteered to work with Danbri to help with this.


Item 18: Schedule

	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule

   As per Eric's request, all editors to work from the PUBLISHED
   docuements (to ensure html tidyness is in place)

   Links should be to the TR document, not the editors' working drafts.

   If you create an anchor, don't remove it.

   Pubrules citation requirements were discussed. [Scribe won't attempt
   to minute from the IRC as the trascript is somewhat sparse - can
   somone follow up to this with the rule regarding citation?]


Item 19: Issue tracking

   All rdf-comments comments should be addressed.

ACTION 2002-11-15#4 (bwm) to look at possible solutions for managing
	issue tracking for incorporating comments.


At this point the telecon ran out of time.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Whose kung-fu is the best?
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 07:15:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:05 EDT