W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-04-11

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:37:49 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304110937.49144.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


bwm:
[[
16: Concepts Issues

pfps-22, pfps-23:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0044.html

pfps-16 (revised proposal):
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0045.html

williams-01 (revised proposal):
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0107.html

RDF fragment text, and revision:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0093.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0123.html 

I'm a bit confused by the email traffic.  Are there specific proposals
for the WG to consider?
]]

My position on these, and my understanding of the traffic, is that:

pfps-22, pfps-23
- agreed as above, two minor questions outstanding:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0144.html

pfps-16
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0045.html
Judging by
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0162.html
we are only considering part (3) of that msg against this issue.
Part (1) is a change (delete s2.2.7) the editors have agreed as editorial.
Part (2) I think now comes under williams-01
On part (3) I think Graham and I have reached the point of amicable 
disagreement.

(I believe the WG decision is made, and these changes are about editorial 
execution of that decision)
williams-01 (revised proposal):
s3.1 as at very end of:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0161.html
( note that are other versions of the same text in that msg)
s3.2 as in:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0107.html
with modification:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0180.html
s2.2.6
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0045.html
with modifications from:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0162.html

(agreed editorial changes - no WG decision needed)
RDF fragment text, and revision:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0123.html 
although Patrick makes a case against this whole section


Thus I believe telecon time can concentrate on pfps-16, pfps-22, pfps-23

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 03:37:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:55 EDT