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

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-10-10

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:00:34 +0300
To: "ext bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BBAC5DF2.22E9%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>



Regrets for today's telecon.

Patrick


On 2003-10-09 20:06, "ext bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> Time:
> 10:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes
> 
> which is equivalent to
> 15:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in Europe/London
> 
> Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
> irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore
> 
> 1: scribe - volunteer needed
> 
> Please could the minutes conform to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0216.html
> 
> 
> 
> 2: Roll Call
> regrets: FrankM
> 
> 
> 
> 3: Review Agenda
> 
> 
> 4: Next telecon 17 Oct 2003 1000 Boston Time
> Volunteer Scribe
> 
> 
> 
> 5: Minutes of 03 Oct 2003 telecon as revised
> 
> 
> See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0078.html
> 
> 
> 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
> 
> ACTION: 2003-08-29#2 danbri
> to investigation production of script for fixing up internal references
> 
> ACTION: 20030919#6 em
> Poke Michael concerning xmlsch-02
> 
> ACTION: 20030919#7 ericm
> contact comm to get publication date
> 
> ACTION: 20030919#8 danbri
> produce boiler plate for SOTD
> 
> ACTION: 20030926#7 bwm
> link issue list to supporting documents (such as JJC I18N issue
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#1 jjc
> continue NFC dicussion with I18N
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#2 jjc
> change concepts NFC MUST to SHOULD
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#3 daveb
> change syntax NFC MUST to SHOULD
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#4 bwm
> ensure last call comment disposition is up to date
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#6 daveb
> change rdf/xml syntax to allow nodeELement as root
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#7 daveb
> add test case to test allowing omitted rdf:RDF
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#8 frankm
> reflect optionality of  rdf:RDF in the primer
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#10 ericm
> produce boiler place for RDF LC2 SOTD template. If done earlier, editors will
> add document-specific bits.
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#11 daveb
> work with danbri to finish publishing script
> 
> ACTION: 2003-10-03#12 daveb
> either work with jang to change the negative entailment test wording, or do it
> himself by monday 6th October
> 
> 
> 
> 7: Status of Misc Actions
> 
> 20030711#4      danc      to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test case
doc
> 
> 20030926#3      DanC      review jjc's revised I18N document in the context
>                       of request to advance
> 
> 20030926#4     EricM     review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal
>                       to advance
> 
> 2003-10-03#5      jjc      check the w3c rdf validator handles omitted rdf:RDF
> 
> 
> 
> 8: Publication Status
> 2003-10-03#9      ericm      chase other groups on the 'heads up list' re
reviews 
> for RDF LC2 WDs
> Is the process getting easier?  Lessons for next time?
> 
> htmldiffs
> Objections
> Last call announcement
> 
> 
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections
> 
> 
> 9: Handling lc2 comments
> Are there things we want to do differently this time?
> 
> - Issues will be tracked in the issues list per DanC's advice
> - bwm to track comments and responses as before
> - We are hoping that we are not going to get many *new* comments,
> so typical responses should be of the form:
> 
> - a reference to a part of the spec that answers a question -
>   - no explanation - just rtfm and request to confirm that this is ok
>   - this is a test of the clarity of the spec.
>   We should expect folks to read the spec carefully.
> 
> or 
> 
> - we've considered that already - what we decided, a brief rationale and
>   the usual request for acceptance.
> 
> - what is our policy on editorial clarification?  We can try to be
> accomodating and try to cover every possible misinterpretation that folks
> come up with, or we can expect folks to read the spec carefully, and if
> the answer is there already, we don't have to spell it out.  So far we have
> been pretty accomodating, but the more we change and the more we add, the
> more there is to go wrong.  The chair suggests we not be in a hurry to modify
> the text.
> 
> - I understand that WEBONT had the chairs triage all incoming comments and
> sent
> responses, i.e. only the chairs respond on rdf-comments.  Do we want to try
> something similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 06:00:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 10 October 2003 06:00:52 EDT