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

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-01-24

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:10:53 GMT
Message-ID: <2385665.1043349142490.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-7>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Time:
10:00:00 Fri Jan 24 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Dec 24 2003 in Europe/London

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

1: Scribe Jan this week


2: Roll Call


3: Review Agenda


4: Next telecon 31 Jan 2003
Volunteer Scribe



5: Minutes of 2002-12-13 telecon

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0140.html


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2003-01-10#11 janG
deprecate the mailto: base URI test case

ACTION: 2003-01-10#12 janG
fix rdfs:member, not rdfs:contains bug

ACTION: 2003-01-10#13 daveB
add links to concepts in ntriples section of test cases doc

ACTION: 2003-01-10#14 bwm
send out LC heads-up to targetted groups and individuals identified by Eric.

ACTION: 2003-01-17#1 frankM
send a brief note to PFPS indicating   the status of his primer comments.

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0065.html 

ACTION: 2003-01-17#2 bwm
check that it is clear that rdf:XMLLiteral is a URI or a datatype.

ACTION: 2003-01-17#3 janG
Update test cases zip file for w3 LCCWD, today

ACTION: 2003-01-17#4 danbri
propose words for semantics LC status section to note about further polishing needed - 1 sentence please.

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0140.html

ACTION: 2003-01-17#5 danbri
copy the LBase RDF Schema tables from the latest version in rdf semantics into the LBase draft.



7: Tech Plenary
It is proposed that there will be a Semantic Web Architecture meeting at the
tech plenary.  This is using the two day slot we requested for RDFCore.

             


8: Publication of Last Call WD's
2002-11-01#16  danbri  team contact for publishinging LBase note
2003-01-17#6  ericM  publish the last call WDs and Lbase Note
 


9: Soliciting Last Call Reviews
2003-01-10#14 bwm send out LC heads-up to targetted groups and
                       individuals identified by Eric.

Email sent to P3P, XMLP, XML Schema, XLINK, URI, WAI.

Responses from WAI, P3P, Schema so far.

P3P is "between charters" and I wrote their RDF schema.  Do I do the review?

XLINK WG doesn't exist and XML Core has responsibility for xml:base, so
suggest contact XML Core to cover this.

And I just noticed I18N should have been on this list and wasn't.
I've just emailed them.

Also need to cover non-W3C groups on Erics list.

 


10: Handling last call comments.
Next Phase is CR:
  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR 

[[
Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Candidate
Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that:

   1. the Working Group has fulfilled the relevant requirements of the Working
 Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements documents. The 
Director must be satisfied with the rationale for any relevant requirements
 that have not been fulfilled;

   2. the Working Group has formally addressed all issues raised during the
 Last Call review period (possibly modifying the technical report);
   3. the Working Group has reported all formal objections;
   4. the Working Group has resolved dependencies with other groups.

The Working Group is not required to show that a technical report has
two independent and interoperable implementations as part of a request
to advance to Candidate Recommendation. However, the Working Group is
encouraged to include a report of present and expected implementation
as part of the request.

The request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate
Recommendation should indicate whether the Working Group expects to
satisfy any Proposed Recommendation entrance criteria beyond the
default requirements (described below).
  ]]

Examplar suggested by DanC:
  http://www.w3.org/XML/2002/12/LC-xml-names11-doc
Process?
Tools?
             


11: PR Entry Criteria

2002-06-18#10  bwm  start dicussion of CR exit criteria
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsPR
[[

Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Proposed
Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that:

   1. the Working Group has fulfilled the relevant requirements of the
Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements
documents. The Director must be satisfied with the rationale for any
relevant requirements that have not been fulfilled;

   2. the Working Group has formally addressed issues raised during
the previous review or implementation period (possibly modifying the
technical report);

   3. the Working Group has reported all formal objections;

   4. each feature of the technical report has been
implemented. Preferably, the Working Group should be able to
demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the
Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical
to the success of a technical report, the Director may advance the
technical report to Proposed Recommendation even without adequate
implementation experience. In this case, the technical report status
section should indicate why the Director advanced the technical report
directly to Proposed Recommendation;

   5. the Working Group has satisfied any other announced entrance
criteria (e.g., any announced in the request to advance to Candidate
Recommendation).
]]


         


12: FAQ: Relationship to XML Family of specs


13: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0163.html



------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 14:11:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:23 EDT