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

Action items from 2003-04-11 teleccon minutes.

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:24:59 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b17baca3819b8ea@[10.0.100.12]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk

>MINUTES RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-04-11
>
>.....
>
>
>
>9: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments
>Please can editors follow up on these as given.
>Jan's list of messages without followup
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0099.html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0208.html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0206.html
>[all editorial, no ack]
>Pat??

Done. Sent to both.

>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0211.html
>[IIRC this has been responded to but I can't find the thread that deals
>with it]
>Pat??

Done. Answered.

>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0228.html
>[language tags and datatyped literal design, by Pat Hayes himself. This
>is currently being debated on rdfcore]
>Pat??

Well, are we debating it? I still think that having meaningless tags 
in non-XML typed literals is silly, and that we ought to either write 
them out of the syntax or let datatypes take account of them. I havnt 
seen or heard any good reasons given yet for the tangle we currently 
have.

In fact I would like  write them out of the XML literal syntax as 
well, but I won't press on that one.

If the WG votes to reject this, I will accept that vote (obviously).

>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0265.html
>[aaron's comment on 404s attached to pfps-14. No ack from Aaron]
>Graham - in progress
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0295.html
>[EricP's comment about examples in Primer. Frank's prompted him for
>reasons why; this is to do with nonopaqueness issue of URLs. No response
>from EricP but I think this is captured in other discussion]
>Frank??
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html
>[question about illformed collections. related to pfps-12 by Brian]
>Pat, please can you take this one.

Done

>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0348.html
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0494.html
>[ter Horst's editorial suggestions, last not ack'ed]
>Pat??

Done

....
>DaveB??
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0362.html
>[Massimo: semantic support for Bag/Alt. This was discussed IIRC but I
>can't find the thread]
>Pat??

Done.  The thread was actually *earlier*.

>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0598.html
>[this is OK, but the response is in the Apr - Jun section, the question
>is in Jan-Mar, just if you're looking for it]
>....

....

>
>11: Schedule
>
>ACTION jeremy identify which four concepts issues will be progressed next
>ACTION jeremy propose closures on four concepts issues for next telecon
>ACTION dave make proposals on remaining syntax issues by next telecon
>ACTION bwm talk to danbri about schema issues
>ACTION danbri To propose eight resolutions for the next telecon
>
>Side discussion on impact of Herman's comments on closure rules:
>
>ACTION jos check impact of closure rule changes on implementation

Jos has done that to my satisfaction, many thanks.

>
>13: Issue horrocks-01
>(taken out of order)
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01
>Jos has done some tests that showed problems with Ian's proposed
>treatment of rdf comments.
>RESOLVED:
>WG not accept horrocks-01 for reasons stated in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0110.html
>
>12: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06,pfps-07,pfps-10
>Pat needs to move this forward.
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-07
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10

5 7 and 10 are done.

4 and 6 are awaiting a resolution of how exactly to refer to a 
well-formed XML literal: the way I have it right now is broken, and I 
need input from Jeremy and/or Graham before I can get this finally 
fixed. Knowing Peter as I do, if I say they are closed at this stage 
he will object. This is only a matter of terminology: the actual 
semantics is OK (and I think Peter agrees).

>
>Pat's message:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html
>
>ACTION 2003-03-14#6 (gk) review semantics editor's draft wrt
>changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10
>ACTION 2003-03-14#7 (jang) review semantics editor's draft wrt
>changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10
>Both Done, awaiting Pat to respond.

Ive responded to Graham by making a number of changes to the 
document, mostly minor edits and moving some stuff back from RDFS to 
RDF.

I don't recall Jan wanting any changes, unless they were minor and 
are now done and forgotten (??) Jan, slap my wrist with a URI if Im 
wrong.

All for now.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 20:25:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:57 EDT