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

Draft minutes: telecon 2002-09-06

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:24:45 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0209061656000.28291-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0062.html
(although the subject's wrong)

Transcript:
	http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-06.txt

Next week's scribe: Eric Miller.

Roll call:

Participants:

  Dan Brickley
  Jeremy Carroll
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Jos De Roo
  Mike Dean
  Graham Klyne
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Sergey Melnik
  Eric Miller
  Steve Petschulat
  Patrick Stickler
  Aaron Swartz

Regrets: Dan Connolly, Frank Manola

Agenda review: all ok, no AOB.

Next telecon: 13th September 2002, same time.

Review minutes of last telecon:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0008.html

(JJC recorded that PFPS (webont) pointed out our minutes as a nice
example - well done all.)

Confirm status of complete actions.
  All done.


Confirm status of witdrawn actions.

  2002-08-30#2 bwm: the datatype literal attribute seems resolved
  2002-08-30#4 bwm: backed off commenting to the DC architecture people


Agenda Item 8: status of new MIME type internet draft:

  See
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0221.html

  Aaron: was unfortunately beset by ill chance; hopefully everything
  should be ok by Sunday or Monday.


Item 9: review of NS last call.

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0058.html

  jjc: responded positively, but feels that that positive feedback
       should come from the WG.

  ACTION 2002-09-06#1 bwm / get feedback to namespaces WG


Item 10: Datatypes

Discuss part 1 of Patrick's consensus building document
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0257.html
along with changes proposed in
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0040.html

  This was met with positive noise from all present. Some editorial
  issues remain, however those are going to be pushed down to individual
  documents as the content of part 1 is distributed.

  RESOLVED: that rdf:datatype is the datatyping attribute in rdf/xml.

  ACTION 2002-09-06#2 daveb / add the rdf:datatype productions to the
	syntax document

  [NOTE there will be knock-on effects with ntriples and abstract
	model documents too to effect that change]

  The WG was unanimous in support of the opinion that, while the DT
	document contents are better placed in existing documents,
	that the sterling editorial efforts thus far should
	not be lost to posterity.

  ACTION 2002-09-06#3 bwm / ensure credit for DT document contents is
	not lost.

  Brian's proposed breakdown of document destinations here:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0061.html

  ACTION 2002-09-06#4 jjc / review material thus far on specifics of
	rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals
	and produce a proposal for wording in the Abs. Syntax document.

  PatS pointed out that there are still issues to consider: what to say
	and/or do about inline literals, in particular (other issues
	probably will be addressed by individual editors)

  ACTION 2002-09-06#5 bwm / as series editor: solicit aid from DT
	document editor in assigning parts of the document to other
	doc editors.


Item 11: relationship between XML Schema and RDF

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0165.html

  Eric pointed out that our charter requires us to address issues of the
	relationship between RDF and XML, we should expect questions
	like this.
  Jeremy said that much of this was still an open research issue
  There was mixed sympathy for the specific proposal regarding XMLSchema
	namespaced attributed being ignored by RDF/XML.
  DaveB said that rather than this, he'd expect to see a general
	namespace exclusion mechanism.
  Jeremy had some sympathy with making an exception for this namespace.
  DanBri proposed the following words in resolution:

  SUGGESTED RESOLUTION (no vote taken but support all round)

  That the possibility of excluding XML Scehma namespaced attributes
	from RDF/XML might be considered in the future. However,
	we currently see no compelling reason to expect to do this
	now, or in the future.

The meeting closed.



-- 
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/
The Java disclaimer: values of 'anywhere' may vary between regions.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 12:27:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:57 EDT