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

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-04-11

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:55:12 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <22323092.1051217776016.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-7>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Time:
10:00:00 Fri Apr 25 2003 in America/New York duration 120 minutes

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Apr 25 2003 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

1: JanG volunteered to scribe
A co-chair requests scribe reviews

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0216.html

so that the script can extract the actions list.



2: Roll Call


3: Review Agenda


4: Next telecon 02 May 2003 1000 Boston Time
Volunteer Scribe



5: Minutes of 11 Apr 2003 telecon with corrections

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0217.html


6: reminder: reviewing Owl docs:
2003-03-28#1  danbri  review OWL Reference when published as Last Call
2003-03-28#2  janG  review OWL Reference when published as Last Call      
2003-03-28#3  bwm  review OWL Reference when published as Last Call      
2003-03-28#4  JanG  review OWL Semantics when published as Last Call

These need to be circulated to the list by early (i.e. Monday) next week.



7: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments

Jan's list of messages without followup

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0099.html

Thanks are due to Jan for checking the list.  This is not the most fun
task by any means.
   
2003-03-28#9  jjc  update Concepts in light of XML Schema LC
        review editorial comments
2003-03-28#11  danbri  check for editorial actions on Schema from 
        XML Schema LC review




8: Issue pfps-07

Propose:

That the WG accept this comment and resolve it as in the current
semantics editors WD:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/

noting that the commentor (pfps) has stated:

[[The changes appear to have fixed the specific issue I raised.]] 

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0082.html

but goes on to express some further doubt.




9: Issue pfps-10

Propose:

That the WG accept this comment and resolve it as in the current
semantics editors WD:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/

noting that the commentor (pfps) has stated:

[[This change appears to have adequately addressed this comment.]] 

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0081.html

but goes on to express some further doubt.




10: Issue timbl-03

We have a couple of proposals:

  1) straight reject:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0262.html

  2) reject but allow implementation flexibility

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0280.html

Looks like a reject - pick which version.




11: Issue xmlsch-10
Propose:

That the WG create a postponed issue

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#dtd-friendly-syntax

postpone this comment per proposal in

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0277.html




12: Issue xmlsch-11
Propose:

That the WG reject per proposal in

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0272.html



13: Issue xmlsch-12
Propose:

That the WG reject per proposal in

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0274.html



14: Issue xmlsch-12
Propose:

That the WG reject per proposal in

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0274.html



15: Issue xmlsch-01
We have two proposals to reject

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html

and a comment from Patrick re monotonicity

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0255.html

Seems like we agree to reject.

Propose:

  o reject comment
  o authorize jjc to respond



16: Issue xmlsch-02

Propose:

Accept this comment per proposal in

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0230.html

Possible modification - use the term "lexical-to-value mapping"

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0241.html




17: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06

  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

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

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0033.html

ACTION 2003-03-14#7 (jang) review semantics editor's draft wrt
	changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10
Done:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0134.html

ACTION: 2003-03-21#9  jjc  Check the details of the denotation of
         XMLLiterals in section 3.1 of Semantics WD draft

Awaiting Pat's followup to review comments.





------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 16:55:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:01 EDT